1 a; r- 




: % f tM^fK^^-^ .^^ 



f\. 










*>«x~ 










,0 o 







ps 





'^ aiTTdlililliililtr-^J " ^^"^ "^ ^ ^ 

O 0^ 









"^A v^ 



V 



o 





.^ ^-^.^ 



\^^ ^^, 



^0 












^o<^. 



.Q' 



%< 









^^. * s ^ ^( 



1 f.- I) 



%4' 



»(\; 






G^ 















.^^ 





















^ , , -^ \' \ 












0^ :^ -^"^% ^ 



^6. 









,^' 



' r. 



'^ P as /i 















// 






J 



.... , . > <^- 
.0 






"^ '■^ *^'~^ ^*" r\0 C- t- 

































=* xO <?. 



,a -7-^ 



THOMAS CRANMER 




Copyright Phcto., Walker & Cockerell 
THOMAS CRANMER, 

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 
PAINTERj G. FLICCIUS. 



Thomas Cranmer 

AND THE ENGLISH REFORMATION 

1489- 1556 



/ 



BY 



ALBERT FREDERICK POLLARD 



ARCHON BOOKS 

HAMDEN, CONNECTICUT 
1965 






c 

• V 



Copyright 1905 by 
ALBERT FREDERICK POLLARD 



Reprinted 1965 in an unaltered 

AND unabridged EDITION BY ARRANGEMENT WITH 

PUTNAM & CO., LTD. 



Copa/ 



Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 65-24503 

PRINTED in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



PREFACE 

IF an author might frankly review his own book in 
his Preface, the following pages would take as 
their text the caution, " Beware of too much explain- 
ing lest we end by too much excusing." For the pres- 
ent volume seeks to explain as much as possible. To 
extenuate nothing is a golden rule, but the grossest 
injustice ensues upon a neglect of extenuating cir- 
cumstances. All the proverbs notwithstanding, ex- 
planation is the first duty of the historian and the 
biographer ; and Cranmer has been termed the most 
mysterious figure in the English Reformation. The 
obscurity is not in his character, but in the atmos- 
phere which he breathed, and atmosphere is the most 
difficult of all things to re-create. As a rule there 
are no materials ; for to people who live in it, a po- 
litical or religious atmosphere is a familiar thing, 
which needs no explanation and therefore is not re- 
corded in documents. Then the atmosphere changes, 
and can only be recalled to posterity by an observa- 
tion and reflexion compared with which the mere 
ascertainment of facts is easy. 

A failure to realise this unfamiliar atmosphere 
vitiates most of the estimates of Cranmer's career 
and character, and notably those of the Whig school 



iv Preface 

represented by Hallam and Macaulay. Hallam in- 
deed always recognises that Cranmer's " faults were 
the effect of circumstances and not of intention," 
but he blames the Archbishop for having " con- 
sented to place himself in a station where those 
circumstances occurred." * He might perhaps have 
made the great refusal ; but unless some one had been 
willing to take up the burden with all its irksome 
conditions, there would have been no Reformation. 
And in one like Cranmer, who for years had been 
praying for the abolition of the Pope's power in Eng- 
land, it surely would have been a cowardly love of 
mental and physical ease to decline his share in the 
work because of the sacrifice it involved. He chose 
the better part, but it was one of labours and 
sorrows. To succeed Warham who had just sur- 
rendered the keys of ecclesiastical independence ; 
to be Archbishop under Henry VHI. who had 
broken the powerful Wolsey without an effort ; then, 
after two years* comparative peace with Somerset, 
to be flouted for four by Northumberland ; and 
finally, under Mary, to hold views of the State 
which compelled non-resistance, and yet to have a 
conscience which said that submission was cowardice 
— such was Cranmer's lot. Compared with Henry 
VHI. he is weak, but none the less human for that. 
He is the storm-tossed plaything of forces which 
even Henry could not completely control ; and his 
soul is expressed in the beautiful and plaintive 
strains of his Litany, which appealed to men's hearts 
in those troublous times with a directness now 
• Constitutional History, ed. 1884, i., 98. 



Largs 
150 



mm( 
150Z. 



Lacy 
Both. 



hom 
•prn : 
[tedi 



Preface v 

scarcely conceivable. His story is that of a conscience 
in the grip of a stronger power; but, unless I mis- 
read his mind, he surveyed his life's work in the 
hour of death and was satisfied. 

It has been maintained by an eminent scholar re- 
cently dead * that the chief content of modern history 
is the emancipation of conscience from the control of 
authority. From that point of view the student 
of Tudor times will not be exclusive in his choice of 
heroes. He will find room in his calendar of saints 
for More as well as for Cranmer. Both had grave 
imperfections, and both took their share in enforcing 
the claims of authority over those of conscience. 
Nor perhaps is it true to say that they died in order 
that we might be free ; but they died for conscience* 
sake, and unless they and others had died conscience 
would still be in chains. That was Cranmer's serv- 
ice in the cause of humanity ; his Church owes him no 
less, for in the Book of Common Prayer he gave it 
the most effective of all its possessions. 

The materials for sixteenth-century history are 
so vast that no one can hope to master them all 
in the allotted span of human life'; but the bio- 
grapher's path has been greatly smoothed by the 
monumental series of Letters and Papers, Foreign 
and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIIL^ published 



' Lord Acton. 

'Dr. James Gairdner, C.B., has made the nearest approach after 
forty-five years' strenuous labour. 

* Cited throughout the text as L, and P.; they are often inaccu- 
rately styled *• State Papers," a description properly reserved for the 



VI Preface 

by the Record Ofifice under the editorship of the late 
Mr. Brewer and Dr. James Gairdner, which so far as 
it goes (1544) completely supersedes all other sources 
for Cranmer's life. Another recently published au- 
thority of the highest value is the Acts of the Privy 
Council^ extending from 1542 to 1599; but the do- 
mestic State Papers from 1547 onwards are poorly 
represented in Lemon's Calendar (i860); and 
although the correspondence of English agents 
abroad is more adequately summarised in Turnbull's 
Foreign Calendar^ the more valuable despatches of 
foreign ambassadors in England are yet unpublished 
with the exception of two volumes issued by the 
French Government, Brown's Venetian Calendar^ and 
the Spanish Calendar^ which has not yet touched the 
reign of Edward VI. or Mary. The great collec- 
tions in the British Museum are also for the most 
part imprinted. 

Of contemporary chronicles, Hall's is the best for 
the reign of Henry VHI., and for that of Edward 
VI. the most useful authority is J. G. Nichols's Lit- 
erary Remains of Edward VI. (Roxburghe Club, 
1857, 2 vols.), which is perhaps more important for 
the numerous contemporary documents it prints 
than for the young King's Journal, which is its ptkce 
de resistance. Of the many valuable chronicles 
published by the Camden Society may be mentioned 
Wriothesle/s Chronicle, the Greyfriars' Chronicle, 



eleven volumes of State Papers of Henry VIII., published in ex- 
tenso by the Record Commission, 1830-52. The L. and P. contain 
much besides State Papers. 



Preface vii 

the Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary^ Mach- 
yns Diary, and the Narratives of the Reformation. 
With regard to church history, the primary source 
is the works of the Reformers themselves ; they are 
here cited in the Parker Society's collected edition 
in fifty-four volumes (Cambridge, 1841-55). This 
includes the latest edition of Cranmer's own works 
(2 vols., 1844-46),* though that by Jenkyns (4 vols., 
Oxford, 1833) is hardly, if at all inferior. Next to 
these, Foxe*s Acts and Monuments (ed. Townsend, 
8 vols., 1843-49)' is the greatest quarry ; his tone is, 
of course, biassed, but he prints a vast mass of docu- 
ments with which he did not apparently tamper. 
The next most valuable collection is Strype, whose 
works on the Reformation in the best edition (Ox- 
ford, 1812-24) run to twenty- five volumes; of these 
the Ecclesiastical Memorials is the most important 
for the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and 
Mary. Strype's labours had been preceded by Ful- 
ler's History {i6$S ', ed. Brewer, 6 vols., Oxford, 1845) 
and Heylyn's Ecclesia Restaurata (1661 ; ed. Robert- 
son, London, 1849), which were partly based on the 
records of Convocation, destroyed soon after at the 
fire of London (1666). Bishop Burnet of Salisbury fol- 
lowed with what was long the most popular history of 
the Reformation (3 vols., 1679, 171 5) ; its arrangement 
is atrocious, but the documents are valuable, espec- 

* This is the edition cited in the text briefly as Works; the volumes 
are not numbered, but that containing Cranmer's works on the Lord's 
Supper was published first, and is here treated as volume i. ; that con- 
taining his letters and miscellaneous pieces followed, and is here cited 
as vol. ii. 

' This is the edition cited as '* Foxe " in the text. 



Vlll 



Preface 



ially in the last greatly-augmented edition of Pocock 
(Oxford, 7 vols., 1865).* The latest history of the 
Reformation on an ambitious scale is that of Canon 
Dixon (6 vols., 1878-99), a work of great labour, but 
perhaps a criticism rather than a history of the Re- 
formation. The best summary of the facts is given 
in Dr. Gairdner's volume (1902) in Stephens and 
Hunt's History of the Church of England, the 
point of view of which is somewhat like Dixon's. 
The general modern histories, such as Lingard's 
and Froude's are too well known to need further 
description ; but it may be remarked that there is 
inadequate justification for the systematic detrac- 
tion of Froude's History which has become the 
fashion. He held strong views, and he made some 
mistakes; but his mistakes were no greater than 
those of other historians, and there are not half a 
dozen histories in the English language which have 
been based on so exhaustive a survey of original 
materials. 

Of the various Lives of Cranmer, Strype's (1694, 
folio, London) is the earliest, the fullest, and contains 
most original matter; but Strype was a most indus- 
trious compiler without any pretensions to style. 
The Life by H. J. Todd (2 vols., 1831) is more 
readable, but is too apologetic, and adds little to 
Strype; and Le Bas (2 vols., 1833) adds practically 
nothing to Todd. The memoir in Dean Hook's 
Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury was written 

* In the text the cumbrous method of reference adopted by Pocock 
in his index has been abandoned, and the references are simply to 
the volume and page of Pocock's edition. 



Preface 5x 

under the influence of the Tractarian movement, 
and particularly of S. R. Maitland's attacks on 
the Reformers; the balance is redressed in Canon 
Mason's interesting sketch (1896) which, however, is 
stronger on the theological than on the historical 
side. Dr. Gairdner's article in the Dictionary of 
National Biography (vol. xiii., 1888) is, like all that 
author's work, a model of compressed accuracy.* 
Its chief defect is that Dr. Gairdner's eye had not 
lighted on the late Mr. R. E. Chester Waters's re- 
searches into Cranmer's family history, published in 
his Chester s of Chicheleyy 1877. That monument of 
scientific genealogy is here for the first time used in 
a biography of Cranmer. 

For a more exhaustive bibliography I must refer 
to the appendix to my England under Protector 
Somerset (1900, pp. 327-339) or to my contribution 
to the Cambridge Modern History (vol. ii., 1904, pp. 
795-801). But I must acknowledge my debt of 
gratitude to the various owners of pictures who have 
generously permitted their reproduction in these 
pages, and to Messrs. Goupil for lending two negatives 
originally prepared for illustrating my volume on 
Henry VHL The Rev. John Standish, Vicar of 
Scarrington, most kindly supplied me with inform- 
ation respecting Aslacton ; and to the candid opin- 



' There are various other Lives of Cranmer from different points of 
view, but they have no claim to be based on original research. For 
Cranmer's "Catechism " see Tite and Thomson's Bibliography ^ 1862 ; 
for his library see Mr. Edward Burbidge's two pamphlets, and for 
his handwriting see J. E. Bziley's Autographs 0/ Thomas Cranmer ^ 
1879. 



X Preface 

ions of my wife and of my friend, Mr. Graham 
Wallas, I owe not merely the correction of many a 
slip, but the pruning of numerous passages. 

A. F. Pollard 

Putney, London, 

15 February, 1904. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I. 

PAOll 
PARENTAGE, BIRTH, AND EARLY YEARS ... I 

CHAPTER II. 

CRANMER AND THE DIVORCE OF CATHERINE OF 

ARAGON 24 

CHAPTER III. 
CRANMER AND THE ROYAL SUPREMACY . . . 61 

CHAPTER IV. 
CRANMER AND REFORM 88 

CHAPTER V. 
CRANMER AND THE CATHOLIC REACTION . . I24 

CHAPTER VI. 
CRANMER'S PROJECTS DURING HENRY's LAST YEARS 161 

CHAPTER VII. 
CRANMER AND THE FIRST BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 184 

CHAPTER Vin. 

THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND CONTROVERSIES . . 224 

xi 



xii Contents 

CHAPTER IX. 

PAGB 

CRANMER AND THE SECOND BOOK OF COMMON 

PRAYER 246 

CHAPTER X. 
THE DOWNFALL OF ENGLISH PROTESTANTISM . . 275 

CHAPTER XI. 
CRANMER's CHARACTER AND PRIVATE LIFE , . 303 

CHAPTER XII. 
IN TIME OF TROUBLE 33O 

CHAPTER XIII. 
IN THE HOUR OF DEATH 356 

INDEX . . » 385 



ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGF 

THOMAS CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY 

Frontispiece 
From the painting by G. Fliccius. 

QUEEN CATHERINE OF ARAGON . . . • 3© 

QUEEN ANNE BOLEYN 32 

After the picture by Lucas Corneley, now in the 
possession of the Earl of Romney. By per- 
mission of the Earl of Romney. 

POPE CLEMENT VII. 36 

After Fra Sebastiano del Piombo, Muzeo Nazio- 
nale, Naples. Copyright by Anderson, Rome. 

QUEEN ELIZABETH ...... 60 

From the picture at St. James Palace. 

SIR THOMAS MORE ....... 80 

After the painting by Holbein. 

LADY JANE SEYMOUR ...... lOO 

After the painting by Hans Holbein, now at 
Vienna. Copyright by J. Lowy. 

WILLIAM TYNDALE HO 

xiii 



»--t 



xiv Illustrations 

PAGE 

THOMAS CROMWELL, EARL OF ESSEX . . . 138 

From the painting by Holbein, probable date about 
1537. Picture is now at Tyttenhanger Park, 
and is reproduced by permission of the 
Countess of Caledon and Messrs. Goupil. 

THOMAS CRANMER, WITH HIS SEAL AS ARCHBISHOP 

OF CANTERBURY 150 

From a steel engraving. 

QUEEN CATHERINE HOWARD 162 

Painted in the school of Holbein. 

KING HENRY VIIL PROBABLY ABOUT 1540 . . 182 

From a chalk drawing by Holbein, in the Royal 
Print Cabinet, Munich. By permission of 
Messrs. Goupil, the owners of the negative. 

BISHOP HUGH LATIMER 2o6 

PIETRO VERMIGLI, COMMONLY KNOWN AS PETER 

MARTYR 218 

From the painting now in the Chapter-house at 
Christchurch, Oxford. By permission of the 
Dean and Students. 

PROTECTOR SOMERSET 250 

After the portrait, dated 1548, in the possession 
of Sir Edmund Verney, and now in his house 
at Rhianva. Reproduced by the owner's per- 
mission. 

KING EDWARD VI. 266 

Painted after a drawing attributed to Holbein. 



Illustrations xv 

PAGB 

LADY JANE GREY 3OO 

From the picture now in the possession of Earl 
Spencer at Althorpe. By permission of Lord 
Spencer. 

LAMBETH CHURCH AND PALACE .... 32O 

As they appeared about the year 1670. From an 
old copper print. 

CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL 340 

From an old copper print. 

CARDINAL POLE 362 

After the picture by Titian, now in the possession 
of Lord Arundel of Wardour. By permission 
of the owner and Messrs. Cassell & Co. 

PORTRAIT OF CRANMER DURING THE REIGN OF 

EDWARD VI 380 

From the original picture at Lambeth Palace. 



THOMAS CRANMER 



CHAPTER I 

PARENTAGE, BIRTH, AND EARLY YEARS 

MIDWAY between the north-midland towns of 
Grantham and Nottingham, and just beyond 
the railway which joins them, lies the modest ham- 
let of Aslacton.* It is not of itself a parish ; of old 
it belonged to Whatton on the south-east, and now 
it forms part of Scarrington on the north-west. 
Until recent years its spiritual needs were satisfied 
with a Primitive Methodist chapel and an Anglican 
mission room named, like some walks and mounds 
in the neighbourhood, after its one distinguished 
native. Its inhabitants do not number five hundred 
souls, and it covers less than thirteen hundred 
acres of land. The cross-roads, on which its cot- 
tages cluster, lead nowhere in particular, and the 
great Fosse Way passes it by in contempt four miles 

* So it was generally spelt in Cranmer's time, and often is to-day, 
but it was in the sixteenth century, and is now also, spelt Aslocton, or 
Aslockton, 



2 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 

to the north-west. Beyond that lies Sherwood For- 
est, already in the days of Cranmer's youth cele- 
brated as the scene of the legendary exploits of 
Robin Hood. To the south-east a stream, dignified 
by the name of the River Smite, meanders down to 
its junction with the Devon and then loses itself in 
the great river, the Trent, at Newark. Beyond this 
stream the ground rises to the heights whence, in 
Armada days, 

" Belvoir's lordly terraces the sign to Lincoln sent. 
And Lincoln sped the message on o'er the wide vale 
of Trent."* 

Few inhabited spots have suffered less from modern 
civilisation ; the nearest money office is three miles 
distant, and if a rustic of Aslacton requires the tele- 
graph he has still farther to seek. Some six times a 
day, trains pass in either direction, but Aslacton 
owes its railway station less to its own than to the 
borrowed importance of neighbouring Whatton ; 
and the proximity of a railroad at all is solely due 
to the fact that the pioneers who constructed the 
line from Grantham and Nottingham must needs 
pass near Aslacton. 

Here on 2 July, 1489, was born " the first Protes- 
tant archbishop of this kingdom, and the greatest in- 
strument, under God, of the happy Reformation of 
this Church of England: in whose piety, learning, 
wisdom, conduct, and blood the foundation of it was 
laid." * But Aslacton, although it was the place of 

* Macaulay, The Armada. 

' Strype, Cranmer^ ed. 1820, p. i. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 3 

Cranmer*s birth, was not the original cradle of the 
race. The family took its name from Cranmer, a 
manor in the parish of Sutterton in Lincolnshire ; and 
its arms, a chevron between three cranes y are an her- 
aldic pun on the name, which signifies a lake abound- 
ing in cranes. It occurs as a place-name in the coun- 
ties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and under the variant 
"Cranmore" is found in the west of England.* 
Imaginative county historians,' and fertile makers of 
pedigrees, have traced the genealogy of the Cran- 
mers of Sutterton back to the reign of Edward I., 
when one Hugh de Cranmer is said to have wedded 
the daughter of William de Sutterton. But few 
genealogists of the sixteenth century were content 
with a line which began at so recent a date. It 
was an age of parvenus^ and therefore of pedigree- 
makers, and the legislature has never weighted 
the imagination of genealogists with the penalties 
attaching to the forgery of other kinds of documents. 
The great Lord Burghley himself was a zealous hunter 
of pedigrees, and even Cranmer liked to believe 
that his forbears came over with William the Con- 
queror. When he discovered in the train of the French 
Ambassador a gentleman with a similar coat-of-arms 
to his own, he gave him a good dinner at Lambeth 
on the strength of the supposed relationship. 

The truth is that the Cranmers* antecedents were 
obscure and their position humble enough. " I take 
it," said Cranmer, many years later, " that none of 



* There were also " Cranmores " at Aslacton, a family of inferior 
social position to the Archbishop's. 
' E. g,y R. Thoroton in his Nottinghamshire ^ ed. Throsby, 1797. 



4 Thomas Cranmer [mSq- 

us all here, being gentlemen born, but had our be- 
ginnings that way from a low and base parentage." * 
No member of his family had been knighted or 
pricked as sheriff, none had been elected to serve in 
Parliament or summoned to fight his country's bat- 
tles in the wars of the fourteenth century. It is, 
however, an exaggeration to say that there is no evi- 
dence for the existence of the various members of 
the family, whom the historian of Nottinghamshire 
has introduced into the fourteenth-century part of 
the pedigree ; for we have it on the authority of the 
tax-collector that in 1338 one Hugh de Cranmer 
owned three acres and something more in the county 
of Lincoln. ' It is no straining of probabilities to 
assume that this Hugh de Cranmer is he whose 
name was painted on the stained-glass windows of 
Sutterton Church,^ and that both are identical with 
the Hugh who figures in the pedigrees as the grand- 
father of Edmund Cranmer, the first to connect the 
Cranmers with Aslacton. 

This Edmund did not a little to promote the 
modest fortunes of the faniily. Early in the fif- 
teenth century he married Isabella, daughter and 
heiress of William de Aslacton,* and her family 
was certainly of higher social standing than that 
of her husband. It may,have been descended from 
Walkelin, presumably a Norman, who held Aslac- 
ton in the time of Domesday Book*; one of its 

* Narratives of the Reformation (Camden Soc), pp. 274-5. 

* Calendar of Close Rolls, 1337-9, p. 493. 

* Holies, Church Notes in Lincolnshire, sub verbo Sutterton. 
*Thoroton, ed. Throsby, i., 262. 

* Test<i de Nevill, Notts, p. 3. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 5 

members had been sheriff of Nottingham and Derby 
shires in the reign of Henry III., and another had 
sat as knight for his native county in the parliament 
of Edward III.* Edmund Cranmer apparently sold 
his Lincolnshire inheritance, and with the proceeds 
purchased in 1425 lands adjoining his wife's in Aslac- 
ton. Their son John married Alice Marshall of South 
Carleton in North Muskham, Nottinghamshire, and 
by her had issue two sons, Thomas, the father of the 
future Archbishop, and John. The elder, of course, 
succeeded to the Aslacton lands, and the younger, 
in orthodox fashion, devoted himself to the Church. 
Of the Archbishop's father we know more than of 
any earlier member of the family. He was probably 
born between 1450 and 1455, and some thirty years 
later he married Agnes, daughter of Lawrence Hat- 
field of Willoughby, in the Nottinghamshire hun- 
dred of Thurgarton. The suggestion' that these 
Hatfields were descended from the lords of Hat- 
field in Holderness is a conjecture unsupported by 
evidence ; but they were a county family of some 
standing, and Agnes Hatfield's uncle married the 
daughter of Sir Thomas Molyneux of Hawton ; his 
son, Henry Hatfield, was in later years surveyor of 
the Archbishop's lands.' By this marriage Thomas 
Cranmer had a large family ; there were three boys 
and at least four girls. Of the daughters, Dorothy 
married Harold Rosell, of Ratcliffe-on-Trent,* and 

» Lists of Sheriffs, P. R, 0., 1898 ; Official Return of Members of 
Pari, i., 72. 

^ Poulson's Holderness^ ii., 443. 
'Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), ii., 265. 
* Thoroton, i., 184. 



6 Thomas Cranmer [1469- 

Agnes wedded Edmund Cartwright* of Ossington, a 
family which produced more than one well-known 
name in English history. Two daughters, Margaret 
and Emmet, were unmarried at their father's death ; 
one of them afterwards became the wife of that un- 
known brother-in-law of the Archbishop who per- 
ished in the fire at Lambeth Palace in December, 
1543.* The other was scarcely more fortunate in 
her matrimonial relations ; her first husband was " a 
milner," but during his lifetime she is said to have 
married a second, one Henry Bingham, and her 
daughter by one of these husbands (presumably the 
first) was wife of Dr. Christopher Nevinson, the 
Archbishop's commissary, facts which furnished ma- 
terial for an attack on Cranmer by his Prebendaries 
in 1543.' 

With so large a family, the Cranmers' household 
can hardly have been luxurious. Despite the slow 
but steady improvement in the fortunes of the clan, 
the Archbishop's father possessed but moderate 
means, and the extent of his influence and estates 
can easily be exaggerated. Aslacton was a ** lord- 
ship " as well as a hamlet, but it is not clear that 
Cranmer was lord of any of the various manors of 
which the " lordship " was composed. The " lord- 

* Thoroton, iii., 173 ; Waters, Ckesters of Chicheley^ pp. 370-1. 

' Stow's Annals^ p. 988. 

^For Nevinson, or Nevynson, see Diet. Nat. Biog.^ xl., 308, 
where, however, no mention is made of his wife's relationship to 
the Archbishop; compare Z. and P.^ vol. y.v\\\.y passim. A fifth 
daughter is said to have been the wife of John Monins, Lieutenant of 
Dover Castle, and a sixth is reported to have married one Shepey, a 
knight, but the relationship of these ladies is highly problematical. 



15293 Parentage, Birth, Early Years 7 

ship " itself belonged to the Crown, apparently as 
part and parcel of the duchy of Lancaster. Ed- 
ward IV. gave it to the Marquis Montagu, brother 
of Warwick the King-Maker, but on the fall of 
the Nevilles it reverted to royal hands. Among 
the various persons appointed from time to time 
as " receivers *' or other royal representatives in the 
** lordship ** the name of Cranmer does not occur* ; and 
from this fact, and from the smallness of the be- 
quests in the elder Cranmer's will, it may be safely 
assumed that his rents hardly sufficed to keep him 
and his household in the moderate comfort to which 
the smaller English gentry of the time were accus- 
tomed. 

These comparatively narrow circumstances deter- 
mined the careers of Cranmer's sons. The eldest, 
John who was born in the spring of 1487, was expected 
to do as his father had done, keep his inheritance in- 
tact, extend it, or enhance his social position by marry- 
ing well, and beget sons to carry on the family line and 
traditions. To him education was a matter of little 
or no importance, and there is no evidence to show 
that his intelligence was one whit superior to that of 
his class. The inference is in the opposite direction, 
for had he possessed brains or ambition, the in- 
fluence of the Archbishop could easily have secured 
for his brother an opportunity of distinguishing 
himself in some wider sphere of usefulness than the 

* See Calendar of Patent Rolls^ 1476-85, pp. 4, 19. The baili- 
wick of the Lordship of Aslacton was granted in 1476 to one Richard 
Holt, and the receivership of Aslacton to Gervase Clifton (cf. Cal. 
Inquis^ Post-Mortem, Henry VII., i., 714. In 1780 Aslacton be- 
longed to a Mr. Marriott (Thoroton, Nottinghamshire, i., 264). 



8 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 

local affairs of Aslacton. But in spite of his lands 
and his brother, John Cranmer never even rose to the 
dignity of a justice of the peace. He was perhaps 
successful in all to which his lowly ambition aspired. 
He won a wife who boasted among her remote an- 
cestors a baron by writ, and his daughter actually 
married the youngest son of a living peer.* 

It was beyond the means of the Cranmer estates 
to support two of the family in such a position, and 
both of John's younger brothers were quartered on 
the Church. There is no reason to suppose that 
either felt any special call to the spiritual state ; the 
decision was made for them by their parents and 
their circumstances ; younger sons, for whom the 
family property could not provide, as a matter of 
course took holy orders. And so Thomas Cranmer 
was, by no design of his own, launched on his fateful 
career. His younger brother, Edmund, born about 
1 491, was intimately associated with him throughout 
his life ; he followed Thomas to Cambridge, assimi- 
lated his elder brother's views and like him, married 
a wife, received the Archdeaconry of Canterbury, es- 
caped to the Continent on Mary's accession, and 
died abroad in 1571.' 

The first step in a clerical career was a clerical 
education, and the Archbishop once told his secre- 

* His first wife was Joan, daughter of John Fretcheville of Stavely, 
whose ancestor Ralph de Fretcheville was summoned to Parliament 
as a baron in 1298; his daughter Susanna (by a second wife) married 
Thomas Brooke, alias Cobham, the youngest son of the sixth Lord 
Cobham ; he became steward of the Archbishop's household and died 
in 1547- 

* "Waters, Chesters of Chicheley^ pp. 395-6. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 9 

tary that his father " did set him to school with a 
marvellous severe and cruel schoolmaster." * An- 
other account,' written soon after Cranmer's death, 
states that he " learned his grammar of a rude par- 
ish clerk in that barbarous time." But as Morice 
goes on to speak of Cranmer's leaving his " grammar 
school" to go to Cambridge, it is probable that his 
instructor was not the local parish priest, but the 
master of some neighbouring school. Of these there 
were at least four within easy reach of Aslacton in 
Cranmer's boyhood, Grantham, Nottingham, Newark, 
and Southwell.' There is no evidence to determine 
at which of these schools he was educated ; possibly 
it was at Southwell, for here in 1533 he recommended 
that his nephew and godson, Thomas Rosell, should 
be sent to school.* Wherever the pedagogue ruled 
his ** tyranny towards youth " is said to have been 

" such that, as he [Cranmer] thought, the said school- 
master so appalled, dulled and daunted the tender and 
fine wits of his scholars, that they commonly more hated 
and abhorred good literature than favoured or embraced 
the same, whose memories were also thereby so mutilated 
and wounded that for his part he lost much of that benefit 
of memory and audacity in his youth that by nature was 
given to him, which he could never recover, as he divers 
times reported. And, albeit his father was very desirous 
to have him learned, yet would he not that he should ht 

* Morice, Anecdotes (Narratives of the Reformation) pp. 238-9. 

* Ibid., p. 218. 

^ See A. F. Leach, English Schools at the Reformation, pp. 
322-3. 

* Cranmer's Letters (Parker Soc. Ed.), pp. 256, 262. 



10 Thomas Cranmei* [1489- 

ignorant in civil and gentlemanlike exercises, insomuch 
that he used him to shoot and many times permitted him to 
hunt and to hawk and to exercise and to ride rough horses. 
So that now being archbishop he feared not to ride the 
roughest horses that came into his stable. Which he 
would do very comely, as otherwise at all times there was 
none in his house that would become his horse better. 
And when time served for recreation after study he would 
both hawk and hunt, the game being prepared for him be- 
forehand. And would sometimes shoot with the long 
bow, but many times kill his deer with the cross- 
bow, and yet his sight was not perfect, for he was pur- 
blind."' 

The elder Cranmer was not, however, long to 
direct his son's training in outdoor sports or mental 
exercises. He died in the prime of life on 27 May, 
1501, when his eldest son was fourteen, his second 
twelve, and his third ten years of age. He was 
buried in the church of St. John of Beverley at 
Whatton, at the east end of the north aisle, and a 
simple inscription on a plain slab of alabaster re- 
corded the fact of his death.' His will was proved 
at York on the first of October following. * It was, 
like everything else we know of its author, entirely 
commonplace ; and such bequests as he made to the 
Church were for the benefit of secular and not monas- 
tic establishments. That was a frequent sign of the 
decay of monastic influence ; and Cranmer's benefac- 
tions did not amount to much. Ten shillings were 

* Morice, pp. 239-40. 

^ Ashmole MS.%1\^ p. 155. 

■ Testamenta £ doracensia {Smtees Soc), iv., 194. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 1 1 

left to Whatton to buy a new bell, and six shillings and 
eightpence went towards the maintenance of the Holy 
Trinity Chapel at Aslacton. * The paucity of these 
ecclesiastical bequests is a little surprising in view of 
the apparently clerical character of the elder Cran- 
mer's friends. The overseer of his will was the Abbot 
of Welbeck, and among the witnesses to it were 
Thomas Wilkinson, vicar of Whatton, who became 
Abbot of Welbeck two years later, and Edward 
Collinson, a Canon of the same Premonstratensian 
Abbey. That Abbey was rector ' of Whatton, and, 
considering the closeness of the relations between 
Cranmer and the Canons of Welbeck, it is somewhat 
strange that neither of his sons should have joined 
that religious house. The idea must almost have 
been suggested to the future Archbishop and re- 
jected by him or by his parents. 

To the members of his family Cranmer had little 
to leave except the lands entailed upon his eldest 
son. Five marks each were given to his two un- 
married daughters, and twenty shillings a year each in 
land were left to Thomas and Edmund ; if either of 
them died, the survivor was to have the shares of 
both. Perhaps there was more to leave than appears 
in the will ; for the widow, who was appointed sole 



* These sums should be multiplied by twenty to bring them to 
their modern equivalent ; the chapel at Aslacton was apparently on 
the site of the present parish room named after Cranmer. 

' Before the Reformation monasteries and other corporate bodies 
were often " rectors" (». ^., owners of the tithe) of parishes; on the 
dissolution of Welbeck, the Archbishop bought the tithes of Aslacton 
and Whatton, and transferred them to his nephew, Thomas, the head 
of the family {cf. Massingberd, Hist, Ref, App.). 



12 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 

executrix and residuary legatee, was able to maintain 
two sons at Cambridge, and, it would seem, to endow 
the future Archbishop with something above his 
twenty shillings a year. Many years later, Cranmer 
wrote that he was better off as a scholar at Cam- 
bridge than he was as Archbishop,' and the ear- 
liest reference to him in the state papers of the time 
records that in 1528 "Master Doctor Cranmer" of 
Aslacton had, like Joseph, corn to sell in a time of 
scarcity.' 

Meanwhile, their father's death made no change in 
the Cranmers* plans and position. Thomas remained 
under his severe and cruel schoolmaster for another 
two years, and then in 1503 or 1504 he went up to 
Cambridge, whither, some five years later, he was 
followed by his brother Edmund. He is assumed 
to have entered at Jesus College, of which he was 
elected fellow a few years later. The college had 
been founded only some six or seven years before on 
the site of the nunnery of St. Rhadegunde, which 
had been dissolved on account of the gross immorality 
prevailing among the inmates.' There was little in 
the intellectual atmosphere of Cambridge to stimu- 
late the mental activity of even the most inquisitive 
undergraduate. The Roman hierarchy still dis- 
couraged the study of Greek as the language of the 
schismatic and rival Church of the East ; it had been 
taught more or less spasmodically for nearly a gen- 



' Works^ ii., 437. 

* Z. a«</ /*., iv,, 3819. 

* J. Bass Mullinger, Univ. of Cambridge, i., 320 ; A. Gray, History 
of Jesus College t iip2, passim. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 13 

eration at Oxford, but had not penetrated to the 
recesses of the sister university. Nor does the clas- 
sical Latin of Virgil and Cicero, Horace and Tacitus 
appear to have been in greater favour. The Univer- 
sity Library at the end of the fifteenth century seems 
to have consisted of between five and six hundred 
volumes, and in this somewhat meagre collection 
there was not a Greek nor a classical Latin author; 
even patristic theology was poorly represented, and 
the library only possessed part of the works of the 
four great Fathers of the Latin Church, Ambrose, 
Gregory, Jerome, and Augustine. The books were 
almost exclusively concerned with mediaeval scho- 
lastic philosophy, the dry bones of which had as 
yet scarcely been stirred by the breath of the New 
Learning. 

So Cranmer's education proceeded uneventfully 
along the dusty, well-worn paths of the trivium and 
quadrivium. " He was nozzled," writes his contem- 
temporary biographer,' "in the grossest kind of 
sophistry, logic, philosophy, moral and natural (not 
in the text of the old philosophers, but chiefly in the 
dark riddles of Duns and other subtle questionists) 
to his age of twenty-two years." The Archbishop 
himself declares that his tutor was " such an one who, 
when he came to any hard chapter, which he well 
understood not, would find some pretty toy to shift 
it off, and to skip over to another chapter, of which 
he could better skill."' The name of this learned 
don has not been preserved, but the fellows of Jesus 

* Narratives of the Reformation^ p. 219. 
' Jenkyns, iii., 472. 



14 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 

Coljege, at the time of Cranmer's entrance, were 
aone of them men of remarkable intellect. The 
Master was William Chubbes, * who had held that 
post since the foundation of the college in 1497 ; he 
was, it is true, the author of two books, but one was 
an introduction to logic, and the other was a com- 
mentary on Duns Scotus ; and it is not unfair to as- 
sume that they typified a scholastic learning then in 
the last stage of senile decay. Chubbes died in the 
second or third year of Cranmer*s residence at Jesus, 
and his successor was Dr. John Eccleston, of whom 
little is known except that he became chancellor of 
Ely Cathedral, and vice-chancellor of the University 
of Cambridge. He presided over the college for 
two years ; and then, after the six months* reign of 
Thomas Alcock, who probably owed his election to 
his relationship to Bishop John Alcock, the founder 
of the college, the choice of the fellows fell upon 
William Capon, who remained Master for thirty 
years. His chief claims to distinction are the facts 
that he was chaplain to Wolsey, by whom he was 
selected to be Dean of his short-lived college at 
Ipswich, and was brother of the more celebrated 
John Capon, Bishop of Bangor and Salisbury. Of 
the fellows scarcely one calls for notice ; Sir Thomas 
Elyot,' the translator of Isocrates and Plutarch, the 
friend of Ascham and More, and the author of one 

* Diet. Nat. Biogr., x., 298. See also Cooper's A thence Cantet" 
brigienses for Chubbes and the other fellows of Jesus ; a list of those 
noticed is given in the house-lists at the end of the volume. Further 
information is in A. Gray's History of yesus College^ 1902. 

' Diet. Nat. Biogr.^ xvii., 347, which also contains lives of Good- 
rich and Bale. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 15 

of the earliest Latin-English dictionaries, has been 
claimed as an alumnus of Jesus College, but on dis- 
putable grounds. The star of the college was, how- 
ever, in the ascendant. Besides Cranmer himself, a 
distinguished fellow was elected in 1 5 lO in the person 
of Thomas Goodrich, afterwards Bishop of Ely, and 
Lord Chancellor of England; and not long after- 
wards the college was joined by John Bale, the 
father of English biographers. 

In the wider sphere of the university light was 
also beginning to shine. In 1497 the illustrious John 
Fisher, afterwards Bishop of Rochester, and Cardi- 
nal, was made confessor to Margaret Beaufort,* the 
mother of Henry VII. He was at the time Master 
of Michaelhouse, Cambridge ; four years later he 
became Vice-chancellor of the university, and 1502 
saw the first fruits of his influence over the greatest 
benefactress of Oxford and Cambridge in the estab- 
lishment of the Lady Margaret chairs of divinity and 
of the Lady Margaret Preachership. The divinity 
professor was to lecture on most days in the year, 
and the preacher was to preach in the neglected ver- 
nacular tongue. These endowments were followed 
by the foundation of Christ's College in 1505, and 
then by that of St. John's College.* In 1506, 
probably at Fisher's suggestion, the King himself 
and his mother visited Cambridge, and in the 
same year the newly-awakened interest in learning 
is indicated by the offer of a degree in divinity 

* See Halsted, Life of Margaret Beaufort, 1839. 

* Baker, Hist, of St. John's College, ed. Mayor ; Bass MuUinger, 
Univ, of Cambridge. 

3 



i6 Thomas Cranmer [,489- 

to the greatest scholar of his age, Erasmus of 
Rotterdam.* 

That these public events of his undergraduate 
career had some influence in broadening Cranmer's 
outlook scarcely admits of doubt ; but for the pre- 
sent he was bound by the limits of the conventional 
studies requisite for his degree ; and it was not until 
after he had graduated B. A. in 1510 or 151 1 that 
he began to emancipate himself from their trammels. 
Even then his line of inquiry was strictly prescribed, 
for soon afterwards he was elected one of the twelve 
fellows of Jesus College, eleven of whom were com- 
pelled by the statutes to study theology. These 
statutes were the work of three successive bishops 
of Ely, Alcock, the founder of Jesus, James Stanley, 
the step-son of Margaret Beaufort and an early friend 
of Erasmus, and Nicholas West ; and their prohibition 
of the study of canon law is a curious illustration of 
the unpopularity in which its abuse had involved it. 
Cranmer accordingly had no option but to pursue his 
theological course, but there was ample scope for re- 
form in its methods, and he now began to turn from 
the mediaeval schoolmen to " Faber, Erasmus, and 
good Latin authors," including probably the great 
Fathers of the Latin Church. It may be no more 
than a coincidence that in the same year (151 1), 
Erasmus took up his residence in Cambridge as 
Lady Margaret Lecturer in Divinity, and it would be 
rash to assume any personal intercourse between the 
Dutch humanist and the retiring young graduate, 

* See Nichols, Letters of Erasmus^ 1901, p. 402 ; Lewis, Life of 
Fisher^ App. viii. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 17 

twenty-one years his junior/ That Cranmer at- 
tended Erasmus's lectures is possible ; but it is by no 
means clear to what extent Erasmus lectured either 
on divinity, as he was bound by the terms of his office 
to do, or on Greek, in which he was naturally more 
interested. Cranmer made no mark at this time as 
a Greek scholar, and Erasmus's subsequent enco- 
mium ' of him as " a most upright man of spotless 
life " was evoked, not by personal friendship, but by 
the fact that Cranmer had promised him the same 
liberality as he had enjoyed from the Archbishop's 
predecessor, Warham. 

The tenure of his fellowship and the course of his 
studies were soon interrupted by Cranmer's mar- 
riage. Jesus College was situated in a somewhat re- 
mote part of Cambridge, and apparently the nearest 
spot at which Jesus men could foregather with mem- 
bers of other colleges was the Dolphin Inn at the 
Bridge Street end of All Saints' Lane, a site now 
occupied by part of Trinity College. ' Inns had not 
then degenerated into mere drinking-shops ; they 
were rather hotels and clubs, and the hosts were in 
better social estimation than the publican of to-day. 
With the mistress of the Dolphin lived a young 
relative named Joan, who is described as ** a gentle- 
man's daughter."* Cranmer fell in love with her 



' The fact that Erasmus does not mention Cranmer has been ad- 
duced to prove that the latter's university career was undistinguished 
(Jane M. Stone, Queen Mary, p. 380) ; but the argument would be 
fatal to many other reputations. 

* Erasmus, Epis tolas ^ mcclxi. 

2 Bass Mullinger, i., 612 ; Mason, Cranmer, p. 7. 

*Foxe. Acts and Monuments ^ ed. Townsend, viii., 4. 



1 8 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 

and eventually married her. She continued to reside 
at the Dolphin, and Cranmer*s frequent resort to 
the house gave rise to the subsequent fable that 
he himself was an ostler at the inn. * This was one 
of many calumnies, but in reality there was nothing 
disgraceful about the marriage except from the point 
of view of perverted class prejudice, which regards 
it as more honourable to seduce than to marry 
girls of humble rank. Cranmer was not in holy 
orders, and it is entirely due to theological hatred 
that his marriage was singled out for objurgation by 
those who passed over in silence the illicit connex- 
ions then commonly formed by churchmen from the 
highest to the lowest degrees. 

This marriage necessarily deprived Cranmer of his 
fellowship, but he was immediately appointed *' com- 
mon reader" in Buckingham College, a recent founda- 
tion, now known as Magdalen College.* This post 
he held for less than twelve months, for about a year 
after his marriage his wife died in childbed, and 
his old college paid Cranmer the compliment of 
re-electing him to his fellowship. The honour was 
the more marked because this extension of the term 
" unmarried " to a widower was an interpretation of 
college statutes which remained unique for centu- 
ries.' It should dissipate any idea that Cranmer 
had lost caste by his marriage, and it is at the same 
time indisputable testimony to the esteem in which 



* Narratives of the Reformation ^ p. 269 ; the northern rebels in 
1536 called him a tavemkeeper. — L. and P.^ xi., 714. 
^ Diet. Nat. Biogr.y liii., 447. 
^ Pass Mullinger, i., 612 ; Le Bas, Cranmfr^ i., 2^. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 19 

his character and intellectual attainments were held 
by those in a position to judge them. 

Meanwhile, under the influence of his bereave- 
ment, Cranmer pursued his studies with increased vig- 
our. In 1 5 16 Erasmus speaks of the change which 
had come over the intellectual atmosphere of Cam- 
bridge in the last few years' ; scholasticism was grad- 
ually giving way to the study of literature and of 
the Bible. Cranmer threw himself into the move- 
ment, and the publication of Erasmus's New Testa- 
ment in 1 5 16 and of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses in 
1 5 17 marks the approximate date at which the future 
English reformer began a systematic examination of 
the Scriptures. 

" Then he " [says his biographer],' " considering what 
great controversy was in matters of religion (not only in 
trifles but in the chiefest articles of our salvation), bent 
himself to try out the truth herein: and, forasmuch as he 
perceived that he could not judge indifferently in so 
weighty matters without the knowledge of the Holy 
Scriptures (before he were infected with any man's 
opinions or errors), he applied his whole study three 
years to the said Scriptures. After this he gave his mind 
to good writers both new and old, not rashly running 
over them, for he was a slow reader, but a diligent 
marker of whatsoever he read; for he seldom read with- 
out pen in hand, and whatsoever made either for one 
part or the other of things being in controversy, he 
wrote it out if it were short, or at the least, noted the 
author and the place, that he might find it and write it 
out by leisure; which was a great help to him in debating 

* Erasmus, Epistola^ cxlviii. * Narr, Ref,^ p. 219. 



20 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 

of matters ever after. This kind of study he used till 
he was made Doctor of Divinity which was about the 
thirty-fourth of his age." 

Even his bitterest enemies bore witness to Cran- 
mer's immense industry and personal attractions. 
" He had in his favour," writes one of them,* " a 
dignified presence, adorned with a semblance of 
goodness, considerable reputation for learning, and 
manners so courteous, kindly, and pleasant, that he 
seemed like an old friend to those whom he en- 
countered for the first time. He gave signs of 
modesty, seriousness, and application," qualities 
which earned him steady promotion in his college 
and university. Soon after his re-election to a fel- 
lowship he was appointed Lecturer in Divinity in 
Jesus College; before 1520 he was ordained, and 
in that year he was selected to be one of the uni- 
versity preachers. He was also entrusted with the 
task of examining candidates for degrees in divin- 
ity, and in this capacity he endeavoured to raise 
the standard of Biblical knowledge by requiring 
from them some evidence of their having studied 
the Scriptures.' Finally, in 1524, he was offered 
by Wolsey a canonry in the newly-founded Cardi- 
nal College at Oxford — an offer which, fortunately 
perhaps for himself, he declined. 

It is a significant fact that most of these Canons, 
selected for their eminence in learning or character, 
soon fell under suspicion of attachment to Lutheran 



* Bishop Cranmer' s Recaniacyons ^ ed. Gairdner, p. 3. 

* Foxe, viii., 5. 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 21 

doctrines. As early as 1521 a number of Cambridge 
men had begun to meet at the White Horse tavern 
to examine and discuss the novel views put forward 
by the Wittenberg monk. The inn became known 
as " Germany," its frequenters as ** Germans," and if 
Oxford's reception of the Renaissance was more 
ready than that of Cambridge, the latter university 
has at least the honour of having afforded an earlier 
welcome to the Reformation. Among these Cam- 
bridge Reformers were some of the greatest names 
in the movement : Tyndale and Coverdale, the trans- 
lators of the Bible; Latimer, the prophet of the 
Reformation; and Bilney and Barnes, Crome and 
Lambert, some of its earliest martyrs. The rapid 
spread of the new doctrines excited alarm in high 
orthodox circles, and the King himself descended 
into the arena with his royal fulminations against 
Lutheran heresies. Sir Thomas More was vexed 
that any one should so far carry into practice the 
principles laid down in the Utopia, where all religions 
were tolerated, as to dissent from the orthodox 
faith ; and soon after his appointment as High Stew- 
ard of Cambridge in 1525 commissions were issued 
to check these vagaries. Severer measures were 
taken by Wolsey in 1528, and some of the Reform- 
ers were induced to renounce their opinions. 

Cranmer himself was affected by his industrious 
examination of the Scriptures and of the new doc- 
trines, and about 1525 he began in private to pray 
for the abolition of papal power in England.* But 
he avoided any open expression of his views, for he 

* Worksy ii., 327; Z. and P.^ 1543. "•» 303' 



22 Thomas Cranmer [1439- 

does not appear to have incurred any suspicion with 
regard to his orthodoxy. Naturally of a reticent 
and unaggressive disposition, he was the very re- 
verse of an enthusiast ; his slowness in reading was 
characteristic. New ideas won their way to his 
mind with painful, hesitant steps ; and they were 
only adopted after years of mature reflexion. His 
caution bordered on timidity, not so much from 
moral cowardice, as from an intellectual perception 
of both sides to the question. He never possessed 
the burning zeal which blinds men to all aspects of 
truth except one, and enables them to go forward in 
the sublime confidence that they are themselves en- 
tirely right and their opponents entirely wrong. His 
career was that of a conservative reformer, reluctantly 
abandoning ground which he felt to be untenable, 
but somewhat doubtful of the security of his next 
foothold. 

He was still, however, occupied almost solely with 
academic work, and besides his college and univer- 
sity duties he appears occasionally to have taken 
charge of private pupils. At any rate, two youths 
of the name of Cressy * were in his care in 1529; 

* The exact relation between Cranmer and the Cressys is difficult 
to trace. There was an ' ' ancient and genteel " family of that name 
settled at Holme near Hodsack, Nottinghamshire, to which the 
famous Benedictine, Hugh Paulinus Cressy (see Diet. Nat, Biog.^ 
xii., 114), belonged; and later in the sixteenth century Cranmer's 
grandnephew, Thomas, and one "William Cressy married sisters. 
The Cressy family had held lands in Nottinghamshire since the reign 
of Edward II., and more than one had attained to knightly rank; 
there were branches of it in other counties (see Cal. Inquisitionum 
post mortem^ iv., 125, 224, 262, 272, 431, 462 ; Cal. of Ancient Deeds^ 
i-» 403* ii'f 520, and iii.^ passim/ Clutterbuck's Hertfordshire ^ i., 407 



1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 23 

their mother was in some way related to Cranmer, 
and their father owned a house at Waltham in 
Essex. Here in the summer Cranmer took refuge 
with his two pupils when that terror of the sixteenth 
century, the plague, made Cambridge an undesirable 
habitation ; and here occurred the incident which 
changed the whole course of Cranmer's life and 
helped to alter the course of English history. 

and other references in Marshall's Genealogist's Guide). The Cressy 
here referred to was possibly Robert Cressy, a notary sometimes 
employed by Wolsey (see Z. and P., i,, 4332, ii., 3925, iv., 6); 
but the only Cressy connected with Waltham appears to be the 
John Cressy who, with Joan his wife, was buried in Waltham Church. 
Fuller says that the name had died out in Waltham before his day 
{circa 1650.) None of the inquisitions in the Record Office throw 
Any light on the matter. 



CHAPTER II 

CRANMER AND THE DIVORCE OF CATHERINE OF 

ARAGON 

OF all the incidents affecting Cranmer's life the 
most important is the divorce of Catherine of 
Aragon.* That divorce and its ramifications were 
the web into which the threads of Cranmer's life were 
woven. Through it he first attracted the notice of 
Henry VIII. ; to his services in that cause he owed 
his elevation to the See of Canterbury, the part 
he played in the history of the English Reformation, 
and, finally, his martyrdom. It therefore becomes 

' It is impossible to avoid the use of the term " divorce" in spite 
of its obvious inaccuracy. From neither of the two conflicting points 
of view was there any divorce at all. The Anglican view was that 
Henry VIII. and Catherine had never been legally married, and the 
so-called divorce was really a declaration of nullity. Roman Cath- 
olics, on the other hand, declared that they were legally married and 
as the Pope gave sentence to that effect, there was no legal " divorce." 
Hence Harpsfield's treatise on the subject is entitled " The Pretended 
Divorce." Nor, indeed, does the canon law recognise such a thing as 
divorce at all ; there may be separation a tnensa et toro, but that 
does not destroy the marriage-bond at all ; or there may be a declara- 
tion that a marriage has been null and void from the beginning. 
These declarations were common in the early sixteenth century, the 
complexities of the canon law affording considerable facilities for 
obtaining them. 

24 



[1529-1533] Divorce of Catherine 25 

imperative to indicate as briefly as may be the origin 
of that episode and its influence on the Reformation 
in which Cranmer Hved and moved and had his being. 
Without some such introduction it is impossible 
to weigh Cranmer's character in the balance, or to 
estimate the effect of his career on English history. 

Important, however, though the divorce was as the 
occasion of the Reformation, no theory could be 
more shallow than that which seeks to represent 
Henry's desire to put away an unattractive wife as its 
one and only cause. Before the faintest whisper of 
any such project as the divorce could have reached 
him, an Imperial officer, writing from Rome to Charles 
V. on 8 June, 1527, alluded to the possibility of the 
King of England's turning the English Church into 
a separate patriarchate and denying obedience to the 
Papal See.* He thought such a development probable, 
if the Imperialists who had just sacked Rome retained 
the Pope in their custody; and, indeed, nothing 
could be more natural than that England should 
repudiate a spiritual jurisdiction which moved at the 
will of a secular foe. The papal claims were tolerable 
only so long as the mediaeval ideal of the unity of the 
civilised world under one spiritual and one temporal 
head remained intact ; but they could not survive the 
growth of the spirit of nationality and the effect of 
the impression that papal powers could be made to 
serve particular interests. This abuse first attained 
flagrant proportions when Charles VIII. crossed the 
Alps in 1494 and made Italy the cockpit of Europe. 
The Vicar of Christ might have looked on with 

* L» and P.^ vol. iv., Pref., p. clxx- 



26 Thomas Cranmer [1520- 

comparative unconcern, had he been content with 
spiritual pre-eminence ; but his efforts to grasp the 
shadow of temporal power involved him in the fray, 
and forced him to side now with one and now with 
another secular prince in order to extend the bounds 
of his petty Italian domains. In this struggle his 
lack of material resources compelled resort to spir- 
itual arms ; and the weapons, wielded of yore in the 
cause of the faith, became pawns in a game which 
was played with Italian acres for stakes. Temporal 
princes were branded as " sons of perdition and child- 
ren of iniquity," not because their morals were bad or 
their creeds unsound, but because they stood in the 
way of papal greed. The Catholic Emperor, Charles 
v., told Clement VII. that the sack of Rome was the 
just judgment of God * ; and one of his envoys pro- 
posed that the Pope should forfeit his fiefs as the 
root of all the evil." The Pope's spiritual influence 
contracted as his worldly possessions expanded ; and 
his estimation and credit have never increased so 
fast as in the generation which followed the loss of 
his temporal power. 

England, however, was not particularly moved by 
papal subservience to secular interests so long as it 
was merely a question of the increase or decrease of 
the extent of the Papal States, or even of the rela- 
tive preponderance of French and Spanish influence 
in Italy. But as soon as a matter of decisive import- 
ance to England arose, she discovered a striking 
grievance. Spain and France might put up with 

* Calendar of Spanish State Papers^ 1527-29, p. 309. 
^ Ibid,, pp. 209-210. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 27 

the prostitution of papal prerogatives in the interests 
of temporal princes, because the kings of Spain and 
of France were precisely those who benefited by the 
process. If the Pope was a Spaniard to-day, he 
might be a Frenchman to-morrow ; but it was safe 
to say that in no case would the Pope be English. 
Even Wolsey and Pole were unable to break down 
the hostile barrier. It was, indeed, admitted that 
there should as a rule be one English Cardinal, but 
what was one in a body of forty ? and it is little won- 
der that the nation repudiated the jurisdiction of 
a court in which its influence was measured on such 
a contemptible scale. 

Such were the conditions that were first brought 
home to Englishmen's minds by the question of the 
divorce of Catherine of Aragon. That question was 
not the cause, but only the occasion of the per- 
manent breach with Rome. Had it been the only 
ground of difference there would have been no ob- 
stacle to reconciliation after the death of Catherine 
of Aragon and Anne Boleyn in 1536. Henry VIII. 
had no love for heresy ; he had been brought up in 
strict adherence to the Catholic faith, and for nearly 
twenty years he had distinguished himself by his de- 
fence of the Papal See. He had launched into war 
against Louis XII. because that king attacked the 
Pope's temporal States ; he had written a book to 
confute Luther's denial of papal prerogatives ; and 
papal blessings had followed him all his life.* The 

* Sir Thomas More in 1521 urged Henry not to maintain so strongly 
in his book that the primacy of the Pope was of divine institution. 
More then doubted that dogma, but later on was converted to it 



28 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

importance of the divorce lies in the fact that it 
changed this friendship into enmity, and alienated 
the only power which might have kept in check the 
anti-papal and anti-sacerdotal tendencies then grow- 
ing up in England. 

But great as Henry's power was, its exercise was 
attended by such potent effects only because it 
decided a balance of other forces : ^lone it would 
have been powerless against the Pope and the 
priests. No ruler can effect anything except by 
utilising forces which exist independently of his own 
individual will, and it is idle to deny that such anti- 
ecclesiastical forces existed in the reign of Henry 
Vni. In 1 5 12, when Englishmen wished to insult 
the Scots, they called them " Pope's men," * and at 
the same time the people of London were said to be 
so hostile to the Church that any jury would con- 
demn a cleric though he were as innocent as Abel. ' 
In 15 1 5 petitions were presented to Parliament 
against clerical exactions, and they gave rise to 
stormy debates ' ; prelates wrote in alarm of a party 
which was bent on the subversion of the Church, 
and bitterly complained that that party found favour 
at Court.* Wolsey sought to save his order by urg- 
ing the speedy dissolution of Parliament ^ and by re- 
fusing, with one exception ', to call another for the 
remaining fourteen years of his rule. Henry VIII. 



while Henry's mind moved in the opposite direction. (More, Eng- 
lish Works, p. 1424 ; L. and P., vii., 289.) 

* L. and P., I., ii., 3320. 2 ji,i(i,^ II., i., 2. 

^Ibid., II., i., 1312, 1315. -Cf. I., ii., 5725. 

*Ibid., II.. ii., 4074, 4083. ^ Ibid., II., i., 1223. *Viz., in 1523. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 29 

knew perfectly well that if he chose to quarrel with 
Rome he would find abundant lay support. 

>While his divorce was not the sole cause of the 
breach with Rome, it is equally clear that Henry's 
passion for Anne Boleyn was not the sole cause for 
the divorce or the origin of the doubts respecting the 
legality of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, 
When Julius II. was first asked in 1503 to grant a 
dispensation for Henry's marriage with his brother 
Arthur's widow, the Pope replied ' that it was a great 
matter, and that he did not know whether it were 
competent for him to grant a dispensation in such a 
case./ His dispensing power had, indeed, been denied 
by a General Council, and it was by no means uni- 
versally admitted that the Pope was superior to 
General Councils. There was no doubt that such a 
marriage was canonically forbidden as sin ; Cather- 
ine's father, Ferdinand of Aragon, felt it necessary to 
remove scruples which Henry might entertain on the 
subject' ; her confessor was deprived of his post for 
venturing to suggest doubts in her mind, ' and Arch- 
bishop Warham held similar views.* These objec- 
tions were overridden by Henry's faith in the Pope 
and desire for Catherine's dower. The marriage was 
consummated, and in all probability nothing more 
would have been heard of its doubtful validity but 
for the extraordinary fatality which attended its is- 
sue. Four children came to the pair before the 



* Adrian de Castello to Henry VII. in Pocock's Records of the 
Reformation^ i., i ; Z. and P.^ iv., 3773. 

' Cal. Spanish State Papers, ii., 8. 

* Ibid, Preface, pp. xiii., etc. * L, and P.^ iv., 2579. 



30 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

autumn of 15 14 ; but every one was still-born or died 
soon after birth, and in that year it was reported 
in Rome that the lack of heirs was leading Henry to 
contemplate the divorce of his Spanish wife/ His 
relations with Spain were strained at the time ; but 
presently they mended, and the birth of the Princess 
Mary in 1 516 revived the King's hopes of a son and 
successor. They were doomed to disappointment ; 
Catherine had more miscarriages and still-born child- 
ren, but not one that survived, and by 1525 it was 
perfectly certain that if Henry remained married to 
Catherine he must relinquish all hopes of a male 
heir to the throne. 

It is difficult to realise what that meant to Eng- 
lishmen of the early part of the sixteenth century, 
for three glorious reigns have long ago banished any 
prejudices that may have been entertained against 
female sovereigns. But in 1531 a well-informed for- 
eign ambassador could solemnly declare to his govern- 



• Calendar of Venetian State Papers ^ 1509-19, p. 479 ; this inter- 
esting and important fact was only revealed by the publication of the 
Venetian State papers in 1866. Before that date, the earliest sug- 
gestion of the divorce was believed to have been made by Henry's 
confessor, Longland, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln. The anonymous 
authorof the " Life and Death of Cranmer, "(iVa^. Ref., p. 219) states 
that Henry was persuaded of the invalidity of his marriage by Long- 
land, and his assertion is supported by a letter written in 1532, in 
which the date of Longland's suggestion is assigned to 1522, or 
1523 (Z. and P., v., 1114). So, too, in 1536 the northern rebels 
thought that Longland was the beginning of all the trouble {ibid., 
xi., 705) and compare Shakespeare, Henry VIII., Act II., sc. iv., 
where Henry says : ** First I began in private with you, my Lord 
of Lincoln." Other persons credited with the original proposal are 
the Bishop of Tarbes, Wolsey, and Stafileo, Dean of the Rota. 




Copyright Photo., Walker & Cockerell. 
QUEEN CATHERINE OF ARAQON. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 31 

ment that the laws of England did not permit a 
woman to mount the English throne.* There was, 
of course, no such law ; nevertheless, that seemed 
to be the theory on which the succession had been 
regulated. The Empress Matilda, the only woman 
who had tried to grasp the English sceptre, had been 
driven from the land after a bloody civil war. John 
of Gaunt had maintained in Parliament that the 
crown descended only through males, and the Lan- 
castrian kings had in practice made good the claim 
that Henry IV., the son of Edward III.'s younger 
son, had a better title than Philippa, the daughter 
of an elder. In 1485 Margaret Beaufort was the 
Lancastrian heir to the throne, yet she was passed 
over in favour of her son Henry VII., who had no 
jot of hereditary right which he did not derive from 
her. Why should the Princess Mary's title be any 
better than that of Margaret Beaufort ? and if the 
attempt of one Queen to mount the throne had kin- 
died the flames of civil strife, would not the attempt 
of another fan the barely extinguished embers of the 
Wars of the Roses? Other fears reinforced this 
theory of the succession. Englishmen throughout 
the century had a dread of being brought by mar- 
riage under a foreign yoke ; by that means Brittany 
had lost its independence, the Netherlands had been 
fettered to Spain, and Bohemia and Hungary to 
Austria. If a Queen ascended the throne she ran 
the risk either of rousing internal strife by marry- 
ing a subject, or of promoting external dominion by 
giving herself and her realm to an alien prince. 

* Col. Venetian State Papers^ 1527-33, p. 3CX), 



32 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

The divorce of Catherine of Aragon was only one 
of the mearis suggested for avoiding the difficulty. 
Campeggio, who came to try the case in England, at 
one time entertained the idea that the Princess Mary 
might be married to her half-brother, the Duke of 
Richmond, Henry VIII. 's illegitimate son.* He ap- 
peared to see nothing unnatural in such a union, nor 
did he anticipate that the Pope would make any 
difficulty about granting the dispensation. Clement 
VII. himself proposed more than once that Henry 
should take a second wife without troubling about 
the divorce of his first' ; and, indeed, there were pre- 
cedents for such a course not merely in Scripture, 
but in more recent times. It was not so very long 
since a pope had allowed a king of Castile to take a 
sepond wife on account of the sterility of his first, 
under the condition that, if he had no children by 
the second within a specified time, he should return 
again to the first.' After all, it was not the Refor- 
mation which first introduced curiosities into the law 
of marriage. 

The expedient, however, which found most favour 
with Henry VIII. and his advisers was that of setting 
up the claim of the Duke of Richmond. The pat- 
ent of his creation in 1525 gave him, much to Queen 
Catherine's disgust, precedence over the Princess 
Mary ; he was endowed with titles and offices which 

* Z. and P.^ iv., 4881 ; it was claimed that the Pope could legalise 
marriages between brothers and sisters of the full blood {ibid.y v. , 468), 
and of course popes have often permitted marriages between aunts 
and nephews, uncles and nieces {cf. Canon Mason, Cranmer, p. 10). 

^ L. and P.^ iv., 6627. 

' Cal. of Spanish State Paper s^ ii., 379, 




QUEEN ANNE BOLEYN. 

AFTER THE PICTURE BY LuCAS CORNELEY, NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF THE EARL OF ROMNEY. 

BY PERMISSION OF THE EARL OF ROMNEY. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 33 

legitimate children of Henry VII. had enjoyed, and 
in 1527 the Spanish ambassador reported a scheme 
for making him King of Ireland.* In various nego- 
tiations for his marriage it was broadly hinted that 
he might safely be regarded as the heir presumptive 
of England," and Charles V. believed that the be- 
trothal of Mary to a French prince in 1527 was mainly 
designed to remove her from England and from the 
Duke of Richmond's path to the throne.' Some 
years later it was thought that the provision in the 
Act of Succession empowering Henry to leave the 
crown by will was intended to facilitate its devolu- 
tion upon the Duke ; andHbefore expressing disgust 
at so violent an expedient, it is well to remember 
that a century and a half later a considerable party 
in England preferred the claim of an illegitimate but 
Protestant son of a king to that of his legitimate but 
Catholic brother.* 

This solution of the difficulty had, however, two 
defects in Henry's eyes. It did not satisfy his con- 
science in the matter of his marriage with Cather- 
ine, and it brought him no nearer a union with Anne 
Boleyn. Now, there is no need to assume that 
Henry's scruples were entirely fictitious. He is not 
the only figure in history who has possessed the 
useful faculty of really convincing his conscience 
that what is personally desirable and politically ex- 
pedient must therefore be morally right. He was, 



' Cal. of Spanish State Papers ^ III., ii., 109, 
' L. and P., iv., 3051. 
» Cal. Spanish State Papers, III., ii., 482. 
* J^amely, MoniQouth and James II, 



34 Thomas Cranmer (1529- 

moreover, in some respects a superstitious man, and 
he could hardly fail to be impressed by the unique 
coincidence of which he was the victim. Never be- 
fore had there been such a mortality among the chil- 
dren of an English king; never before had an Eng- 
lish king married his brother's widow. In that theo- 
logical age men less superstitious than Henry might 
easily have seen some connexion between these cir- 
cumstances and the Scriptural prohibition against 
marriages such as his* ; and it is one of the ironies of 
history that writers who maintain most sincerely that 
Henry's marriage was null in the sight of God and 
man have sometimes been his severest judges for 
having dissolved it. The basis of such a position 
lies, of course, in equitable considerations. Quod 
fieri non debuit factum valet was the common-sense 
view of the Lutheran divines on the point, and no 
court of equity would have granted a divorce, for its 
injustice to Catherine was flagrant and unredeemed. 
But, unfortunately, CatHerine's case, like all great po- 
litical issues, was judged, not by equity, but by law 
and expedience. The political advantages of a di- 
vorce were patent, and if the Pope's dispensing power 
was denied, it was also clear that the marriage was 
null in point of law. 

At first Henry VHI. was by no means inclined to 
deny the papal dispensing power. He was, on the 
contrary, relying on it to remove an impediment to 
his marriage with Anne Boleyn arising from his illicit 



* The French Ambassador, Du Bellay, afterwards a Cardinal, de- 
clared that ' ' God had long ago passed sentence upon the marriage " 
(Z. andF., iv., 4899; Du Bellay to Montmorency, Nov. ist, 1528), 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 35 

relations with her sister Mary.* He experienced no 
difficulty in obtaining a dispensation to that effect, 
and he had some grounds for expecting an equally 
favourable reply to his demand for a divorce. Within 
his own family circle he saw ample precedents for 
such a course. His younger sister, Mary Tudor, 
had been twice married, first to Louis XH. of France, 
and secondly to the Duke of Suffolk; both hus- 
bands obtained divorces from previous wives with- 
out the least difficulty. Louis's first wife had been 
sent to a nunnery solely because he wanted to marry 
the Duchess of Brittany and offered the Pope his 
support in return for the boon. The Duke of Suf- 
folk's case was still more to the point, for he ob- 
tained a divorce on the identical ground on which his 
brother-in-law was seeking one, namely, the invalid- 
ity of a previous dispensation.' Then, too, at the 
same moment that Henry's envoys were pressing his 
divorce, representatives of his sister Margaret, Queen 
of Scotland, were urging the Pope to annul her mar- 
riage with Angus for reasons much more flimsy than 
those which Henry VHL put forward.' Yet her de- 
mand was granted without much trouble, and surely, 
Henry might think, a powerful king like himself was 



' These relations were long believed in England {cf, Le Bas, Lift 
of Cranmer, i,, i8) to be a Roman Catholic libel similar to the as- 
sertion that Henry VIII. was father of Anne Boleyn. The latter, 
indeed, is a fiction, but there is no doubt about the relations be- 
tween Henry VIII. and Mary Boleyn. See Stephan Ehses, Rom- 
ische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrich VIII. 
von England, 1^27-1^34, 1893, and English Historical Review, 
vols. xi. and xii. 

* L. and P., iv., '5859. * Ibid,, iv., 4130, 4131. 



36 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

entitled to as much consideration as his sister and 
brothers-in-law. 

His petition then did not seem altogether unrea- 
sonable, nor did Clement VII. treat it as such ; but the 
Pope was still in the grip of the Imperialists who had 
pillaged his capital and kept him in ignominious con- 
finen^ent in the castle of S. Angelo. He could hardly 
be expected to court ruin by divorcing his gaoler's 
aunt; but if the French, now in alliance with Henry, 
would only advance and deliver him from the hands 
of his enemies, he would see what he could do.' 
Meanwhile he endeavoured to gain time by granting 
commissions which turned out to be worthless. They 
succeeded, however, in their object, for in 1528 the 
French commander, Lautrec, marched down through 
Italy, captured Melfi, and shut up the Spaniards in 
Naples. Spanish dominion in Italy seemed doomed 
to perish. Clement felt himself something more 
than the Emperor's chaplain, and an ample commis- 
sion was granted to Wolsey and Campeggio to try 
the case." Even if one were unwilling, the other 
might proceed and pronounce sentence by himself, 
and all appeals from the jurisdiction of the legatine 
court were forbidden. The Pope also gave a written 
promise that he would not revoke nor do anything 
to invalidate the commission, but would confirm the 
Cardinals* sentence.^ This was tantamount to a ver- 
dict in Henry's favour, and he might well think that 
his case was won. 

But no sooner had Campeggio started than the 

* Z. and p., iv., 3682. 2 /^/^,^ iv., 4345. 

* £.ng. Hisk Rev.^ xii.,7 ; Ehses, Romische Dokumenie^ No. 23. 




Copyright, Anderson. Rome. 
POPE CLEMENT VII. 

AFTER FRA SEBASTIANO DEL PIOMBO, MUZFO NAZIGNALE, NAPLES. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 37 

fortune of war was reversed. The French were de- 
feated, and the Pope's secretary wrote off in hot haste 
to Campeggio that as the Emperor was victorious 
the Cardinal must not on any pretext pronounce a 
decision without a fresh commission from Rome. 
He must protract the matter as long as possible, for, 
in view of Charles's predominance, the granting of 
Henry's divorce would mean the utter ruin of the 
Church **as it is entirely within the power of the 
Emperor's servants." * Clement himself assured 
Charles that nothing would be done to the prejudice 
of his aunt. Campeggio's proceedings in England 
were therefore merely a farce intended to divert 
the English until the final event of the war in Italy 
should make up Clement's mind. On 21 June, 1529, 
hostilities were brought to an end by the crushing 
defeat of Landriano. The Pope, with an intelligent 
anticipation of coming events, had declared a few 
days before that he meant to become an Imperialist 
and to Hve and die as such,' and early in July he 
concluded a family compact with Charles at Barce- 
lona.' Clement's nephew was to marry Charles's ille- 
gitimate daughter ; the tyranny of his family was to 
be reimposed on Florence, and all towns wrested from 
the Papal States were to be restored. The Pope in 
return was to quash the proceedings against Cather- 
ine of Aragon. Campeggio was informed before- 
hand of the Pope's intentions ; the case, had, however, 
made considerable progress, and on 23 July Henry, 
ignorant of the understanding between Clement and 

^ Z. and p., iv., 4721, 4736-37. 

2 Spanish Cal., IV., i., 72. * Ibid., II7. 



38 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

Charles, expected Campeggio to pronounce his sen- 
tence. The court was crowded, Campeggio stood 
up and began to speak, but instead of delivering 
judgment he adjourned the case/ *' By the Mass," 
burst out Suffolk, giving the table a great blow with 
his hand, " now I see that the old saw is true, that 
there was never a legate or cardinal that did good in 
England!" 

The effect of this blow on a man of Henry's chol- 
eric temper and boundless self-will may well be im- 
agined, but with all his passionate egotism the King 
combined a notable power of self-control. No furi- 
ous outburst on his part seems to have followed the 
legate's decision, and friends of the Queen vainly 
flattered themselves that the affair would blow over. 
But early in August the King made arrangements 
for summoning Parliament," and then started on a 
progress in the country. On the 4th he was at 
Waltham, on the 6th he was hunting all day at 
Hunsdon. Thence he moved to Tyttenhanger, and 
three days later returned to Waltham ; he was ac- 
companied by Dr. Edward Fox, his almoner, and by 
Stephen Gardiner, his secretary. The harbingers 
quartered Fox and Gardiner in Cressy's house, 

* His procedure is said to have been quite normal, because he only 
claimed the holidays usually taken by the Rota ; but this was little 
more than a pretext. At any rate, when Charles V. was pressing for 
a decision in Catherine's favour in the following year, his ambassador 
declared that it was usual for cases of such importance to be carried 
on in spite of the holidays. Z. and P.^ iv., 6452. 

* The writs were actually dated 9 Aug. , but the determination to 
summon Parliament must have been reached before Henry left 
London ; it was his reply to Clement's revocation of the divorce case. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 39 

where Cranitier was staying with Cressy*s sons. Both 
were old acquaintances of Cranmer's, for Fox was 
educated at King's College, of which he was now 
Provost, and Gardiner was Master of Trinity Hall. 
Nor was this the first occasion on which Cranmer 
had been in the precincts of the Court. Nearly 
a year before, he had been sent to London by 
the Master of Jesus, apparently to negotiate some 
business with regard to the property held by the 
college in Southwark, and he returned, bringing let- 
ters from Cromwell, even then well known as Wol- 
sey's factotum.* 

Naturally the three friends, meeting at dinner in 
Cressy's house, fell to discussing the great question 
of the divorce. Cranmer was asked his opinion ; he 
professed that he had not studied the matter, but 
being a theologian and not a lawyer (the statutes of 
his college forbade the study of canon law), he had 
little patience with the law's delays, and suggested 
the more speedy method of taking the question out 
of the hands of the lawyers and submitting it to the 
divines of the universities.' No one to-day would 
think of appealing to such an arbitrament, but, as 
Ranke says, *' we must recollect that the universities 
were then regarded not only as establishments for 
education, but as supreme tribunals for the decision 
of scientific questions " ' ; and when the Elector 
Frederick of Saxony founded Wittenberg in 1502 he 
declared that he and all the neighbourhood would 



* Z. and P,^ iv., 4872. 

' Morice in Narratives of the Reformation, p. 241. 

' Hist, of the Reformation, trs. by Austin, i., 314. 



40 Thomas Cranmer [152^ 

resort to it " as to an oracle." To these oracles Cran- 
mer now proposed an appeal. They were indeed 
the only tribunals apart from the Papacy to whose 
verdict any respect would be paid. The Popes of 
a previous generation had practically destroyed the 
authority of General Councils, and the Papacy was 
now the handmaid of Charles V. The anarchy in 
Christendom inevitably encouraged separatist ten- 
dencies, but it would at least give an appearance of 
moral justification to individual action on the part of 
the English Church if the universities of Europe 
approved of the grounds on which it acted. 

So Fox and Gardiner eagerly welcomed Cranmer *s 
suggestion,* and a day or two later, after the Court 
had removed from Waltham, they mentioned the 
matter to Henry. The King was no less pleased 
with the idea. He thereupon, says Morice, " com- 
manded them to send for Dr. Cranmer. And so by 
and by being sent for, he came to the King*s pres- 
ence at Greenwich.'* If Morice is correct as to the 
place, Henry certainly acted with no undue precipi- 
tation, for he did not return to Greenwich until 
November,' when the meeting of Parliament ren- 

' According to a more doubtful version of Cranmer's advice, he 
declared tliat " if the King rightly understood his own office, neither 
Pope nor any other potentate whatsoever, neither in causes civil nor 
ecclesiastical, hath anything to do with him or any of his actions, 
within his own realm and dominion ; but he himself, under God, hath 
the supreme government of this land in all causes whatsoever " ; 
whereupon "The King swore, by his wonted oath. Mother of God, 
that man hath the right sow by the ear " (Bailey, Life of Fisher^ pp. 
89-go; cf. Foxe, viii., 8). There is an ex post facto flavour about 
this story and it rests on no contemporary authority. 

' See the itinerary of Henry VIII. in L. and /•., iv,, 5965, and other 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 41 

dered his presence in London necessary. He had 
other matters to occupy him, and the interval saw 
the fall of Wolsey and the preparation of those 
parliamentary measures which began the subjection 
of the Church in England to the royal supremacy 
and its consequent separation from Rome. "And," 
continues Morice, ** after some special communication 
with the said Dr. Cranmer, the King retained him to 
write his mind in that his cause of divorcement, and 
committed him unto the Earl of Wiltshire, Queen 
Anne's father, to be entertained of him at Durham 
Place, where the Earl did lie, until he had penned 
his mind and opinion concerning the said cause." 

With this task Cranmer was busy during December 
and January, and he is no doubt the " wonderfully 
virtuous and wise man," by whose counsels the King 
then described himself as being encouraged. Other 
steps were promptly taken to carry out his advice, 
and in November Dr. Richard Croke, the great 
Greek scholar, was sent to Italy to ransack libraries 
tor writings which would tell in Henry's favour, and 
to secure the adhesion of noted doctors in the uni- 
versities. As soon as Cranmer's book was completed, 
it was circulated, apparently in manuscript, among 
the leading dons of Cambridge, and he was himself 
sent down to reinforce by word of mouth the argu- 



references to his progress during August-November. It is interesting 
to compare Foxe's account (Acts and Monuments ^ viii., 7) with his 
authority {Narr. Re/., p. 242). Thus, Morice's "by and by" 
becomes, in Foxe " the next day, when the King removed to 
Greenwich," although in reality there intervened a month's residence 
at Windsor. 



42 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

ments of his pen.* Both methods met with success; 
in one day he is said to have converted six or seven 
learned men who had hitherto been opposed to the 
divorce ; and when, in February, Gardiner and Fox 
were urging the nomination of a committee of uni- 
versity scholars to determine the question, objection 
was raised to many of their nominees on the ground 
that they had already expressed approval of Cran- 
mer's book.' 

It does not appear that Cranmer had any part or 
lot in the manoeuvres of the King's agents to obtain 
a favourable vote in Senate-house at Cambridge. He 
had been selected to accompany the Earl of Wiltshire,' 
Stokesley, afterwards Bishop of London, and Lee, 
afterwards Archbishop of York, on their embassy to 
the Pope and to the Emperor ; and, though the 
ambassadors did not start, as has often been 

' I find no mention of the book having been printed ; Strype sug- 
gests that the treatise on the divorce in Cotton MS. Vespasian B. v. , 
(Brit. Mus.), which is signed by Cranmer, is his original work (see 
Burnet, Ref., ed. Pocock, i., i66 ; iv., 146-7 ; vii., 239). Pocock 
agrees with Strype, but the signature, Thomas Cantuariensis ^ could 
not have been written before 1533. 

' L. and P. , iv. , 6247. 

^ There is no evidence that Cranmer was ever chaplain to Anne 
Boleyn or her father ; or that he was acquainted with the family 
before Henry VIII. quartered him on the Earl at Durham Place. 
Dr. Gairdner, who makes the assertion in his edition of Brewer (ii., 
223), does not repeat it in his life of Cranmer in the Diet. Nat. 
Biog. (1888), though he does, without citing any authority, in 
his History of the English Church (1902), p. 137 ; he has himself 
pointed out Brewer's error in supposing that Cranmer was the Earl's 
chaplain who was employed in the divorce question in 1527-28 (cf. 
Z. and P.^ iv., 3638); the chaplain in question was John Barlow, 
possibly brother of the Bishop of St. Davids. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 43 

asserted,' in December, they left England late in 
January or early in February, 1530, before the matter 
came to a decision in the University. Soon after 
their departure the verdicts of Cambridge and Oxford 
in Henry's favour were sent after them to be laid 
before the Pope in the hope that some impression 
might be made upon his mind. The envoys utilised 
their presence in France to urge the French King 
to obtain similar decisions from the Sorbonne and 
other learned bodies in his dominions. Eventually, 
Paris and Orleans, Angers, Bourges, and Toulouse 
adopted Henry's view against the papal power to 
dispense; these votes were not obtained without 
some manipulation, but to represent them all as due to 
bribery is to accuse the pre-Reformation universities 
of a degree of corruption which the most zealous 
Protestant would scarcely believe to be possible. 
The truth is that the power of the Pope to dispense 
in such cases was, as Julius II. admitted, really a 
matter of doubt; and while individuals may have 
been bribed by Henry's agents on the one hand or 
by Charles's on the other, there is no more reason to 
question the honesty of the mass of the opinions 
given in Henry's favour than of those given against 
him. 

Meanwhile the ambassadors proceeded by slow 
stages through France — it was beneath their dignity 
to travel " in post," — and they were too late to witnf^Qs 



^ E. g., by Canon Mason, Cranmer, p. 16 ; nor was Cranmer, as 
his biographers have often assumed, formally accredited as one of the 
ambassadors ; he was only attached to the embassy with special 
reference to the university business 



44 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

the occasion on which for the last time in history 
a Holy Roman Emperor received his crown from 
the hands of a Pope. That ceremony took place 
at Bologna on 24 February, but it was the middle of 
March before Cranmer and his colleagues reached the 
city.* The Emperor was still there negotiating with 
Clement, and, appalled by the din of the Imperial 
arms, the Pope had no ears for requests from a distant 
king. Even when Charles was gone, his power re- 
mained : and though Clement repeatedly declared 
that he wished Henry would marry Anne Boleyn 
without further ado, and so relieve him of the 
responsibility for what might happen,' he would take 
no step which might expose him to the Emperor's 
wrath. So Wiltshire and Lee returned in the early 
summer to France, while Stokesley was left at 
Bologna to deal with the university there, and 
Cranmer joined Croke with a similar object at Venice. 
In view of the fact that the Emperor and the Pope 
had just rearranged the political map of Italy after 
their fancy, and that Clement had drawn up a bull 
prohibiting all doctors, notaries, and others, from 
maintaining the invalidity of Henry's marriage," it 
is surprising that the English agents should have 
met with any success. Yet Ferrara, Bologna, and 
Padua determined in their favour, and in June Cran- 
mer is said to have offered to debate the question 
with any doctor in Rome. Thence he wrote on 12 

' Canon Mason thinks that they witnessed this ceremony, but on 
12 March, Casale writes from Bologna, " The English ambassadors 
will be here to-morrow or the next day." — Z. and P., iv., 6268, 

"^ Ibid,, iv., 6290 ; Le Grand, Ilist, du Divorce^ iii., 394. 

^ l.^ and P.^ iv., 6279, 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 45 

July, admitting that their success was small ; they 
dared not attempt, he says, to know any man's mind, 
because of the Pope.^ He did not escape the effects 
of the July climate at Rome, and lay there ill for a 
fortnight. On his recovery he returned to the charge 
with no better success than before. He wanted a 
papal brief in Henry's favour, but whenever the 
Pope made the slightest concession in the way of 
postponing an adverse decision, the Emperor's 
envoys made such an outcry, and so terrified him 
that the concession was quickly withdrawn.' Cran- 
mer declared that he had never known such incon- 
stancy ; but this, we must recollect, was his first 
experience of Clement's diplomacy. Personally he 
seems to have made a favourable impression on the 
Pope, who paid him the compliment of appointing 
him Penitentiary for England. Finally Cranmer 
left Rome in September, bringing with him to Eng- 
land little result of his mission, except the votes of 
the Italian universities, the credit for which was dis- 
puted by Stokesley and Croke. The latter had been 
an old Cambridge friend of Cranmer's, and it is 
worth noting how highly Croke thought of Cranmer's 
influence with the King. He hopes that Henry will 
believe only Cranmer's version, and even sends his 
reports open to Cranmer, that he may determine 
whether or no they should be delivered to the King ; 
he left " everything to Cranmer's discretion and 
friendship.'/ ' 



^ Z. and P.^ iv., 6531 ; Cranmer's letter is not extant ; but it is 
quoted in one of Croke's to Henry VIII. 

2/<J., iv., 6543 ; Pococjc, Records^ i., 409. 'Z, and P.^ iv., 6701, 



46 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

There was now an apparent lull in the matter of 
the divorce. Parliament did not sit at all in the year 
1530, and at Rome Henry contented himself with 
placing obstacles in the way of a decision which now 
could only be adverse ; two years were consumed in 
discussing whether his agent should be admitted to 
plead that Henry could not be legally cited before 
the court. The time was not wasted in England ; 
" nothing else," wrote a Florentine in London, ** is 
thought of every day, except arranging affairs in such 
a way that they do no longer be in want of the 
Pope, neither for filling vacancies in the Church, nor 
for any other purpose." * While the Curia was de- 
bating technicalities, Henry VHI. was undermining 
the foundations of the papal power in England, and 
taking measures which would render the Pope's sen- 
tence a brutum fulmen whenever it might be given. 
Cranmer, however, had no share in the proceedings 
which ended in the King's being acknowledged by 
Convocation in 1531 as Supreme Head of the Church 
in England ; he was not a member of that body, but 
seems to have been quietly employed in further 
probing the intricacies of the divorce case. Reginald 
Pole's treatise on the subject was submitted to him 
for examination in that year, and Cranmer reported 
that Pole's arguments were so skilfully marshalled 
and plausibly put that if the book were published, 
the minds of the people would be incontrovertibly 
fixed in hostility to the King's cause.' For his serv- 
ices he appears to have been rewarded with the 

^ Z. and p., iv., 6774. 

^ Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, -^PP* I» 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 47 

Archdeaconry of Taunton,' a town which by a 
curious coincidence was represented in Parliament 
by his friend and ally, Thomas Cromwell.' How far 
either of these two heroes of the English Reforma- 
tion influenced the King at this time by private 
advice it is not possible to ascertain. Both were 
in frequent communication with their sovereign ; 
but on the other hand, Henry VHI.'s policy after 
Wolsey's fall was mainly his own, and the general 
course of the Reformation was a perfectly natural 
development from existing circumstances, which it 
is idle to attribute to the influence of any one man. 
Cranmer's quiet studies were soon interrupted. 
His colleagues in Italy had spoken very highly of 
his diplomatic abilities, and early in 1532, Henry, 
who was a shrewd judge of men, selected him for 
the post of ambassador to the Emperor Charles V.' 
He was expected to do his best to present the 
Divorce in as favourable a light as possible to the 
Emperor and his ministers, but more especially to 

* Morice says " Deanery of Taunton in Devon," which is a singu- 
lar mistake. Le Neve {Fasti Eccl. Angl., i., 16S,) makes Cranmer 
Archdeacon of Taunton from 1525 to 1533, but Gardiner held that 
office in 1529. Possibly Gardiner resigned it in 1531 when he was 
made Bishop of Winchester, and Cranmer succeeded him. The 
registers of Bath and Wells are silent on the matter. 

' Official Return of Members of Parliament^ i. , 370. 

3 His instructions are dated 24 January, 1531 [-2], in them he is 
styled " consiliarius regis," which shows that he had been admitted 
a member of the King's ordinary council, a body to be carefully 
distinguished from the much smaller and more important Privy 
Council. The Privy Council was evolved out of the ordinary 
council much as the Cabinet has been evolved out of the now bulky 
and unmanageable Privy Council, 



48 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

the Princes of Germany, whom he was secretly to 
sound with respect to a possible alliance between 
them and England ; and he was to endeavour to 
obtain the repeal of some restrictions on trade be- 
tween Englishmen and Charles V.'s subjects in 
the Netherlands. He joined the Imperial Court at 
Ratisbon, and soon found himself helpless as re- 
gards the last part of his instructions, because Charles 
left the determination of commercial affairs in the 
Low Countries in the hands of his prudent sister, 
Mary the Regent. In July he quietly repaired to 
the Court of Saxony, where the Elector, John Fred- 
erick, had recently succeeded his father ; he was 
commissioned to assure the Elector and the Dukes 
of Liineburg and Anhalt of assistance from Henry 
VIII. and Francis I. in their opposition to Charles 
V. Suggestions had also been made in the previous 
year that the two kings should extend similar pro- 
tection to the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the ablest 
of the German Protestant princes.* When these 
projects were formed the prospect of civil war in 
Germany seemed imminent ; the Protestants had 
been condemned at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, 
and Charles V. was threatening to reduce them by 
force of arms to obedience to himself and the Catho- 
lic Church, while they, in self-defence, had formed 
the Schmalkaldic League. But before Cranmer 
arrived at Ratisbon the situation had altered com- 
pletely. The Turk was on the point of overrunning 
not only Hungary, but Germany ; and the pressure 
of this peril forced the two parties together. To pur- 
^L. (tnd p,^ v., 584, 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 49 

chase the aid of the Protestant princes Charles made 
them such concessions at Niirnberg as to ensure, at 
any rate for the time, the peaceable exercise of their 
religion ; and they were now more eager to show 
their zeal in defence of the fatherland than to turn 
their arms against their sovereign.* There were 
other obstacles to an understanding between Henry 
VIII. and the German Protestants : Henry disliked 
their view of the mass, and they disapproved of 
Henry's matrimonial conduct. 

But if Cranmer brought away from Germany no 
advantageous alliance for England, he formed there 
a bond which, however much it may have increased 
his domestic felicity, proved a serious embarrassment 
at more than one stage in his public career. During 
the discussions with dukes and divines at Niirnberg, 
he was naturally thrown into contact with the emi- 
nent pastor of that Lutheran city, Osiander,' who, 
although he maybe roughly described as a Lutheran, 
differed in several respects from the great Reformer, 
and favoured a definition of the doctrines of the Eu- 
charist and Justification by Faith which would tend 
to reconcile them to some extent with Catholic 
views. His arguments were probably not without 
effect upon Cranmer's theological development ; and 

^ Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, iii., 
413, etc. 

^ Ibid., v., 449 ; Allgemeine Deutsche Biographic, xxiv., 473-483 I 
Bollinger, Reformation, ii., 81-111; iii., 397-437- The humanists 
and continental reformers had a perfect passion for giving their 
names a classical form ; thus Gerard became Erasmus, and Schwar- 
zerd was translated into Melanchthon. Osiander's real name was 
Hosmer. 



50 Thomas Cranmer [1529. 

in his turn the English divine was able to convince 
Osiander of the invalidity of Henry's first marriage ; 
he also persuaded the German to prosecute the 
labours on which he had long been engaged for 
the harmony of the four Gospels, and the volume 
was published in 1537 with a dedication to Cran- 
mer.* In the course of his visits to Osiander's house 
Cranmer became attached to his host's niece, Mar- 
garet," and he had apparently married her before he 
left the city. The step was a strong one, for Cran- 
mer was now in priest's orders, and the canons of 
the Western Church strictly imposed upon priests 
the obligation of celibacy.'* The authority of those 
canons was at the time being rudely shaken in Eng- 
land, but there was no indication that they would 
be so far overthrown as to permit the marriage of 
priests. On the other hand, neither Popes nor Kings 
had been in the habit of inquiring too closely into 
the private affairs of high-placed ecclesiastics. Wol- 
sey had formed far less defensible unions, and 
Clement VII. himself was said at the time to have 
taken ** two wives '* with him to his interview with 
Francis I. at Marseilles.* The worst that Cranmer 
had to fear was that his morality might be likened 
to that of the Pope and the Cardinal. 

Another of Cranmer's ambassadorial duties was to 
arrange with the Emperor the form which Henry's 
assistance against the Turks should take. Both the 



' Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, i., 15. 

^ She is often erroneously called Anne, even by the lawyers at 
Cranmer's trial, and in the Parker Society's Works. 
^ Canon Mason, Cranmer, p. 25. *Z, and P., vi., 1147, 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 5 ^ 

English and French kings were bound by treaty to 
join in the defence of Christendom, but there was 
usually an easy method of escape from such obliga- 
tions. Henry and Francis would only offer men, 
and Charles wbuld only take money ; and before the 
difference was adjusted the retreat of the Turks and 
the disbanding of the Emperor's army relieved the 
immediate necessity. Cranmer followed the Im- 
perial forces from Ratisbon to Vienna in Septem- 
ber, and from Vienna to Villach in October. On the 
way he visited the scene of the battle between the 
Turks and the Imperial forces, and he noted in his 
letters * many things which might enlighten his 
master on the condition of the Emperor's power in 
Germany and the prospect of his becoming a danger- 
ous foe. His Italian and Spanish troops did more 
damage, says Cranmer, than the Turks themselves ; 
they spread desolation far and wide along their 
march ; and so disgusted were the " boors " that they 
gathered in the mountains and fell upon the troops 
and killed them whenever opportunity offered.' 
Neither Charles nor his brother Ferdinand ^ was be- 
loved in the country, and the Emperor had lost the 
esteem of military men by his failure to prosecute 
his advantage over the Turks and free his brother's 
kingdoms from their ravages. 

'Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), ii., 231-236. 

^ Ibid.^ ii., 234 ; for the ravages committed by troops in Germany 
compare Sastrowj Social Germany hi Luther's Time^ tr. Vandam, 
1902. 

2 Ferdinand, already King of Bohemia and Hungary, had recently 
been elected King of the Romans, and his elevation was disliked by 
other German princes. 



52 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

Cranmer dated the last of these letters on 20 Octo- 
ber from Villach in Carinthia, whence the Emperor 
was to cross the Alps and again interview Clement 
VII. on his way to Spain. He got as far as Mantua, 
but before that second meeting at Bologna took place 
he had received his recall to England. Warham, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, had died in August, and Cran- 
mer was destined to be his successor. Gardiner, 
perhaps, might have had the office but for his op- 
position to Henry in the parliamentary session of the 
previous spring; and the knowledge embittered the re- 
lations between the two men for the rest of their lives. 

Much has been made of this sudden promotion to 
the archbishopric of Canterbury of one who had at 
best only held an archdeaconry ; but the fact has been 
overlooked that the preferment of many of the great- 
est primates of England has been equally rapid.* Of 
Cranmer's predecessors, Becket,Winchelsey,and Islip 
were only archdeacons ; Langton and Meopham were 
only canons; Kilwardby and Peckham were only 
priors ; Brad wardine was chancellor of St. Paul's, and 
Wethershed of Lincoln, when they were raised to 
the Metropolitan See. It had been the exception 
rather than the rule for a bishop to be translated to 
Canterbury ; and so far as his previous preferment 
was concerned, Cranmer's promotion could be justi- 
fied by numerous precedents. Nor does it appear 
that a better choice could have been made with re- 
gard to personal qualities ; the only living churchman 
with whom Cranmer could be compared in intellect 
was Pole, and Pole, who had already refused the 

' See Le "Ntwe, Fasti Eccl, Angl., ed. Hardy. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 53 

archbishopric of York, was out of the question. The 
real objection was not to Cranmer's person, but to 
the policy which he pursued. 

Warham is said to have foretold that Cranmer 
would step into his shoes,* but to the new arch- 
bishop himself the nomination came as a somewhat 
unpleasant surprise. A man of strong domestic af- 
fections, he feared separation from the wife he had re- 
cently married ; and there is no reason to doubt his 
assertion that he protracted his return journey to 
England in the vain hope that Henry would in the 
meantime change his mind.' Henry, however, soon 
had private reasons for hastening on Cranmer's 
election, confirmation by the Pope, and consecra- 
tion. As Queen Elizabeth was born on 7 Septem- 
ber, 1533, Anne Boleyn's pregnancy was no doubt 
known to the King in January of that year. It 
was important to save her character as far as was 
possible, and still more important that her issue 
should be legitimate according to England's laws, 
which by hook or by crook must be made to suit 
the circumstances. On or about St. Paul's Day, 25 
January, Henry and Anne were privately married ; 
but that was not enough without an authoritative 
declaration of the nullity of the King's previous union 
with Catherine of Aragon. It was hopeless to ex- 
pect such a favour from Clement VII., but it might 
be obtained from an Archbishop of Canterbury. 



^ Nicholas Harpsfield, A Treatise on the Pretended Divorce (Cam- 
den Soc, 1878), p. 178. 

'^ He took seven weeks over it, when it might easily have been ac- 
complished in three ; see report of his trial in Foxe, viii., 55. 



54 Thomas Cranmer [1529. 

Even that was not sufficient without a legal recogni- 
tion of the Archbishop's Court as the supreme and 
final court of English ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 

These were the objects which Henry VIII. pur- 
sued in the spring of 1532 with consummate skill 
and audacity. Cranmer reached England in January, 
1533 ; the usual practice of leaving rich bishoprics va- 
cant for at least a year in order that their revenues 
might in the interval accrue to the Crown was aban- 
doned, and Cranmer became Archbishop-elect of 
Canterbury. To meet his expenses Henry lent him a 
thousand pounds, and intimated pretty forcibly to the 
Pope that he must grant Cranmer his bulls at once and 
without the usual fees. Clement must have known 
the purpose for which the bulls were wanted, and it 
seems amazing that Henry should have made such 
demands, and still more so that they should have 
been granted. But the English King knew his 
business ; in the previous year he had with some dif- 
ficulty induced Parliament to leave it to him whether 
the Act of Annates should be put in force or not ' ; 

' This astute provision was embodied in the Act at Henry's per- 
sonal instance ; Chapuys (Z. and P., v., 879) relates how the King 
went down to Parliament three times to pass "the article about the 
Annates," and Giles de la Pomeroy, the French envoy, speaks of his 
cunning in persuading Parliament to leave the execution of the Act 
to him ; his letter, although printed under the right date in Froude, 
ed., 1893, i., 354, has been erroneously placed in Dr. Gairdner's 
Letters and Papers, under the year 1531, instead of 1532 {Ibid., v., 
150). It is pretended that the royal pressure was needed to get the 
general principle of the Act through Parliament ; but it is much 
more probable that it was needed to ensure the enactment of this 
particular clause, which constituted a remarkable extension of 
the royal authority. 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 55 

and the persuasive he now applied to the Pope 
was the hint that refusal would cost him the First- 
fruits of all English benefices. The Pope and the 
Cardinals sighed, but after all it was better that 
they should go without some of their perquisites for 
Cranmer's bulls ; it was better that sentence should 
be given by him against Catherine of Aragon than 
that the Roman curia should forfeit all the wealth it 
drew from England. So on 21 February, in spite 
of the efforts of Chapuys, who sent an envoy to the 
Pope to warn him against Cranmer, the bulls were 
sped with unwonted celerity. 

The lever placed in Henry's hands by the Act of 
Annates was used for other purposes. It served to 
make the Pope and his ministers adopt an attitude 
of apparent friendliness to England, and it was actu- 
ally under this appearance of concord that the Act 
forbidding appeals to Rome was passed in 1533. 
Henry was pleasing the Pope, not only by withhold- 
ing his consent to the Act of Annates, but by oppos- 
ing a General Council which Clement feared above 
everything else,' and which Charles V. was demand- 
ing as part of his compact with the German Protest- 
ants. Clement, moreover, was bribed by the French 
offer of marriage between his niece, Catherine de 
Medici, and the future Henry H., and he seemed 
about to desert the Emperor's cause." Catherine of 
Aragon's friends in England were furious ; they 
cursed Charles for being so slack in her defence, and 



* A proposal was threatened for the restoration of the Papal States 
to the Emperor. Z. and F,. vi.. 212. 

* Ilnd,y vi., 396. 



56 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

they cursed especially the Pope for expediting 
Cranmer's bulls and delaying the sentence in Cath- 
erine's favour. Henry took the papal nuncio down 
to Parliament to advertise the excellent terms upon 
which he stood with the Holy See^ ; and he even 
told the unsuspicious priest that, although his studies 
on the subject of papal authority had caused him to 
retract his early defence of the Pope, yet Clement 
might perhaps give him occasion to probe the mat- 
ter further still and reconfirm what he had originally 
written ! " Of course this was all a piece of clever and 
not very scrupulous bluff, but political morality has 
always been a tender plant, and it was frail indeed 
in the sixteenth century. The means were none the 
less successful ; the appearance of concord between 
Henry and the Pope disheartened the opponents of 
the Act of Appeals and its passage left the King 
master of the situation in England. Clement had 
confirmed an Archbishop who would assuredly de- 
cide the divorce case in Henry's favour, and Parlia- 
ment had made it illegal to appeal from his 
decision. 

On 30 March Cranmer was consecrated. Four 
days before, he had drawn up a formal protest to the 
effect that he considered the oath of obedience to 
the Pope, which he would take at his consecration, a 
form and not a reality, and that he did not intend to 
bind himself to do anything contrary to the King 
and commonwealth of England, or to restrain his 



^ L. and P., vi., 89: " Many think there is a secret agreement be- 
tween the King and the Pope," ->" vi T42. 
^ Ibid,, vi., 296 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 57 

liberty in things pertaining to the reformation of 
the Christian religion and the government of the 
Church of England/ At his trial this protest was 
represented as a scandalous act, amounting to per- 
jury.' It was due rather to an excess of scruple on 
Cranmer's part. Most men would have taken the 
oath without question, thinking that any future Act 
of Parliament repudiating the papal jurisdiction 
would be a sufficient release from its obligations." 
Cranmer was not satisfied with this ; he foresaw that 
England would throw off its allegiance to Rome, 
and he determined that there should be no miscon- 
ception as to his own action. It was, however, ne- 
cessary that he should take the oath, because it had 
been the law, or at least the custom, so to do, and 
it was doubtful whether he could be regarded as a 
properly constituted Archbishop unless he fulfilled 
all the prescribed formalities. The contention that 
all who had sworn obedience to the Holy See should 
always and in all circumstances be bound by their 
oath was a convenient weapon in the hands of 



' Jenkyns, Cranmer, iv., 247 etc. ; L. and P., vi., 291 ; Dixon, 
Hist. Church of England, i., 158. 

' Foxe, viii., 55 : " He made a protestation one day, to keep never 
a whit of that he would swear the next day." 

^ If he had quietly said nothing, his action would, according to 
the arguments of his enemies at his trial, have been justifiable. In 
defending their own conduct in swearing the oath of royal Su- 
premacy and then repudiating it, they declared that a bad oath 
should not be kept. So that Cranmer might have sworn the oath 
to the Pope which he believed bad, and then broken it without 
guilt. The guilt apparently consisted in declaring intentions which 
should have been kept secret {cf. Jenkyns, iv., 87-89). 



58 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 

Popes/ but no one had done more to weaken the 
force of oaths by their frequent grants of absolution. 
Such a contention would indeed tend to stereotype 
political and ecclesiastical conditions, and the state 
of the world would present a curious aspect to-day 
if at any period in its history oaths of allegiance had 
become perpetually binding. They are, in fact, 
feeble expedients which in public affairs are con- 
sidered binding only so long as convenient; they 
never alter the course of events, and under the cir- 
cumstances the counsel of perfection is undoubtedly 
" Swear not at all." Cranmer, however, had no al- 
ternative, and while his conduct afforded his prosecu- 
tors too good a forensic opportunity to be lost, it need 
not materiallyaffect his judgmentat the bar of history. 
Twelve days after his consecration Cranmer wrote 
to the King, humbly begging for licence to proceed 
with the trial of the question between him and 
Catherine.' He gave as a reason for haste the mur- 
murs of the people, but the real reason was the con- 
dition of Anne Boleyn. The way had been already 
prepared by Convocation, which had assented to 

* The more enlightened of the Fathers who assembled at the 
Council of Trent insisted that no reformation of the Papacy was 
possible unless members of the council were released from their 
oaths to the Pope, and their assertion was justified by the event. 
Rigid observance of these oaths would have made the Reformation 
impossible in every country that recognised the Pope's authority. 
La petite morale est Vennemi de la grande. If the oath had been 
sworn to an enemy of the Pope he could have dispensed with Cran- 
mer's obligation to keep it, as he did in the case of Francis I. in 1526 ; 
but the morality of an action does not really depend upon the 
question whether it is licensed or not by the Pope. 

* Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), ii., 237, 



1533] The Divorce of Catherine 59 

two propositions: first, that as a matter of law 
the Pope had no authority to perniit marriages be- 
tween a man and his deceased brother's wife when 
the previous union had been consummated ; and, sec- 
ondly, that as a matter of fact the marriage between 
Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon had been so 
consummated/ All Cranmer had to do was to act 
upon the decision of the Church in England, and 
Convocation must share with him the responsibility. 
He opened his court in May at Dunstable, some four 
miles from Ampthill, in Bedfordshire, where Cather- 
ine was then residing. She was duly summoned to 
appear,' but she refused to recognise Cranmer's juris- 
diction, and was declared contumacious. That suited 
the court very well ; the case was quietly hurried on, 
and sentence was given on the 23rd.' It was a mere 
repetition of the decree of Convocation ; the mar- 
riage of Henry and Catherine was declared to have 
been void from the beginning, because the Pope did 
not possess the dispensing powers he claimed. 

Five days later Cranmer pronounced, at Lambeth, 
that the King's marriage with Anne Boleyn was 
valid. Assuming the correctness of the previous 
decision, that Henry had never been married to 
Catherine, there was no reason for this second de- 
claration except to quiet the popular mind. But the 
vagueness of the Archbishop's sentence spoilt its 
effect ; it afforded no information as to the date or 
manner of the marriage, and to this day it remains 



* Z. and P,^ vi., 311, 317, 4QI. 

* Cranmer, Works ^ ii., 241, 244. 

•Z. and P.y vi., 469, 470, 525; cf. Burnet, i., 22(>-22X, 



6o 



Thomas Cranmer [1529-1533] 



a matter of mystery/ Almost immediately after- 
wards, on Whitsunday, the first of June, Cranmer 
crowned Anne Boleyn as Queen in Westminster 
Abbey,' The coronation feast was celebrated with 
no little splendour, but Anne's enjoyment of it was 
sadly marred by the state of her health/ Three 
months later she gave birth, at Greenwich Palace, to 
the future Queen Elizabeth, and it accorded well 
with the fitness of things that the first Metropolitan 
of the Reformed Church of England stood as god- 
father* to the infant under whose guidance the 
cause of the Reformation finally triumphed. 

' The only original authority for the date of the marriage is 
Cranmer's statement in a letter of 17 June, 1533, to the effect 
that it took place " about S. Paul's day last " i. e.^ 25 January 
(Cranmer, Works, ed. Parker Society, ii., 246 ; Ellis, Original 
Letters, ist Ser., ii., 33-34; Harleian MS ^ 6148, f. 33; Archceo- 
logia, xviii., 78 ; Todd, Life of Cranmer^ i., 80). Stow, in his 
Annals, p, 533, gives this date, but Hall, who is followed by Holin- 
shed, gives 14 November, 1532. This antedating of the marriage 
was probably intended to shield Anne's character ; Burnet {Hist. 
Reformation, ed. Pocock, i., 218) argues from the date of Eliza- 
beth's birth, that Anne must have been married by the beginning of 
December, " for," he says, " all the writers of both sides agree that 
she was married before she conceived with child." This is a par- 
ticularly reckless statement on Burnet's part. Nor is it known who 
performed the ceremony Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, re- 
ported as early as 23 February (Z. and P., vii., 180) that Cranmer 
was the priest, but the Archbishop himself {^Works, ii., 246) de- 
nounces the rumour as false, and says he did not know of the mar- 
riage until a fortnight after the ceremony. 

'See the description in Tudor Tracts, ed. A. F. Pollard, 1903, 
pp. 10-28. 2 L. and P., vii., 584, 601. 

* Elizabeth was bom on Sunday, 7 September, and baptised by 
Stokesley, Bishop of London, on the following Wednesday. Shake- 
speare {Henry VIII., Act V., sc. i.) represents the birth as taking 
place in the night, but it was between 3 and 4 PM. {lb., vii., mi.) 




QUEEN ELIZABETH. 
FROM THE PICTURE AT ST. JAMES PALACE. 



CHAPTER Til 

CRANMER AND THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 

" I PROTEST before you all," affirmed Cranmer 
1 at his trial, "there was never a man came 
more unwillingly to a bishopric than I." * ** For the 
Passion of God," wrote another famous prelate ' to 
a friend at Court when about to be offered an epis- 
copal See, " if it be possible yet, assay as far as you 
may to convey this bishopric from me " ; and he 
signed his letter " Yours to his little power. Add 
whatsoever you will more to it, so you add not bishop." 
Twenty years later this same divine was suggested 
for the Archbishopric of Canterbury, but even this 
splendid temptation failed to move him from his at- 
titude of nolo episcopari. Parker was as loath to 
accept the primacy from Queen Elizabeth as Cran- 
mer had been from her father ^ ; and when Latimer 



' Foxe, viii., 55. 

' Z. and P., XIV., ii., 501. Todd, Deans of Canterbury^ p. 4. 
The writer was Nicholas Wotton, Dean of both the primatial cathe- 
drals, doctor of both laws (canon and civil), and reputed professor 
of both creeds, Catholic and Protestant, He kept his preferment in 
the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth (see 
art. by the present writer in Did. Nat. Biog. , Ixiii. , 57-60). 

^ Pdrker's Correspondence (Parker Soc), p. 70. 

61 



62 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

discarded his rochet in 1539 he danced for joy at the 
thought of his freedom * ; not all the pressure of 
the Court nor even a petition from the House of 
Commons could induce him to resume his episcopal 
garb in the reign of Edward VI. 

Seldom, indeed, has an episcopal career offered 
fewer attractions than during the sixteenth century. 
The possession of place without power is purgatory 
to all but ignoble minds, and lack of power was only 
one of the hardships which fell to the lot of Henry's 
bishops ; others were provided by the prison and the 
stake. But men of spirit could face fetters and 
flames with greater dignity than they could sit on a 
throne, erstwhile that of Augustine, but now the 
footstool of him who wielded the sceptre of Eng- 
land. The Church had fallen from her high estate ; 
tKe mighty institution which had humbled emperors 
in the dust was become the handmaid of princes. 
The successor of him, who had stood as a suppliant 
three days in the snow at Canossa, had with impun- 
ity sacked the Holy City and held the Vicar of 
Christ as his prisoner ; and the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury had sunk into the position of a minister 
of a spiritual jurisdiction which belonged to the 
King. 

This revolution was already effected before Cran- 
mer was elected to the Metropolitan See ; it only 
needed some legal formalities to give it complete re- 
cognition. No one can really be satisfied with the 
theory that th\s peripeteia was solely due to the vio- 
lence, av arice, and lust of a single man. The phen- 

»Foxe, vii., 463, 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 63 

omenon was not peculiar to one, but common to 
almost all the nations of Europe ; priests were not 
more hated in England than they were in Germany, 
and the secularisation of church property proceeded 
apace even in Catholic countries. The Church of 
England was painfully servile to Henry VIII., but it 
never licensed bigamy, as Clement VII. proposed to 
do at Rome, and as Luther and Melanchthon did in 
Germany. The subordination of Church to State 
was in the sixteenth century a common characteristic 
rather than a distinguishing feature, and it is there- 
fore idle to seek its explanation in purely local 
circumstances like the temper of Henry VIII. 

There had for many hundreds of years been an un- 
ceasing struggle in every country between the civil 
and the ecclesiastical power. In England the Church 
reached the zenith of its influence during the thir- 
teenth century ; and from the legislation of Edward 
I. it had gradually declined until the Wycliffite move- 
ment, with its appeal to the State to purify a corrupt 
Church, seemed likely to anticipate some of the most 
striking effects of the Reformation. But the alliance 
between the Lancastrian monarchs and the Church, 
the emancipation of the Popes from their Babylonish 
captivity at Avignon, and their victory over the Con- 
ciliar movement delayed the decisive hour; and 
then the Wars of the Roses interposed another ob- 
stacle in the path of reform. The main result of 
that struggle was an enormous increase of royal 
power. Feudal aristocracy committed political sui- 
cide, and even the House of Commons maimed 
itself for generations. Henry VII. completed the 



64 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

process. His most effective method of strengthen- 
ing his position was the elimination of all alterna- 
tive governments^ and pretenders were removed by 
force or by fraud, while the remaining feudal lords 
were converted into Tudor officials or relegated to 
obscurity. 

But his astute policy would have been vain with- 
out the co-operation of powerful secular tendencies. 
The amazing geographical discoveries extending 
throughout the fifteenth century, and the conse- 
quent impetus given to commerce diverted men's 
minds from the pursuit of political ends to the 
prosecution of personal gain, and a community bent 
on trade is more interested in strong government 
than in self-government. The simultaneous revival 
of learning, and particularly the study of Roman 
civil law, added fresh dignity to the name of 
Prince ; common law and feudal custom, both of 
them checks on royal despotism, became barbarous in 
the eyes of men who were fascinated with the sym- 
metry of the Code and its scientific maxims of des- 
potism. To promote the study of the Roman civil 
law was an object dear to all the Tudors ; their 
officials were mostly civilians, and the Roman law, 
which was adopted far and wide on the Continent, 
and even in Scotland, was almost received into Eng- 
land.* It was a weapon which kings could use against 
canon and common law, against papal and popular 
claims. To Roman emperors divine honours were 
paid after death, and to Tudor sovereigns honours 

^ Professor F. W. Maitland, English Law and the Renaissance^ 
1901; Eng. Hist. Rev., xv., 168-169. 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 65 

too near the divine were rendered while they lived. 
No poet before the age of the Tudors would have 
thought of the *' divinity " which ** doth hedge a 
king," and a great French historian has described 
the sixteenth-century sovereign as a kind of new 
Messiah.* He was the embodiment of the fresh 
national aspirations which had ousted the universal 
and cosmopolitan ideals of the Middle Ages, and 
intense loyalty to the King left little room for the 
old allegiance to the Church. 

The last reinforcement the King received was from 
the Reformation itself. The voice of the Church, 
which exalted the Pope but slighted the King, gave 
way to the Scriptures, which knew nothing of Popes 
or Archbishops, but were emphatic about the claims 
of secular princes. In the Old Testament kings 
rather than priests were the Lord's Anointed. In 
the New, resistance to authority was pronounced 
a heinous offence, and the powers that be were 
derived from divine ordination. Cranmer's polit- 
ical theory resembled that of St. Paul. Luther 
long regarded Charles V. as the lineal successor of 
the Csesar whose authority Christ had recognised; 
and when he gave up his faith in Charles he trans- 
ferred it to his territorial sovereign, the Elector of 
Saxony, and preached an unlimited passive obedi- 
ence. The divine right of kings was a Reformation 
theory. 

Parallel with this extraordinary growth of the 
royal prestige and power there went a corresponding 



' Michelet, Histoire de France, ed. 1879, i^M 2>^^' (Chap, xii.), 
Le Nouveau Messie est le roi. 



66 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

decline in clerical influence. Externally the Church 
stood erect, robed in its old magnificence; papal 
pretensions were never louder nor clerical privileges 
more exorbitant than at the dawn of the sixteenth 
century; and it was a novel extension of ecclesias- 
tical abuses which precipitated the conflict at Wit- 
tenberg. Bui it was then with the Church as it was 
with the French monarchy on the eve of the Revolu- 
tion ; both had monopolised power only to be 
crushed by its weight ; and while the imposing 
edifice seemed to grow in height, its foundations in 
the hearts arid understandings of men were slowly 
rotting away. The debasement of clerical morals, the 
corruption of papal courts, the immunity of clerical 
criminals, the wealth of the clergy, their exactions 
from the laity, and the oppressiveness of their juris- 
diction had made the Church more unpopular than it 
had been before or has been since.* One of the first 
uses to which the printing-press was put was to 
satirise and denounce the clergy ; and whether the 
accusations contained in this popular literature were 
substantially true or not, they prove that the Church 
had lost its hold upon the affections of men. These 
grievances found their first and freest utterance in 
Germany. They were equally felt in England, but 
in England there was a strong central government, 
which, for the moment, was guided by clerical 
hands. 

During the first few years of Henry VIII.'s reign 
his chief advisers were Bishops Fox and Ruthal, and 

' See Cambridge Modern History, vol. i., chap, xix., by H. C. Lea, 
for a brief but admirable statement of these grievances. 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 67 

Archbishop Warham ; presently they were eclipsed 
by Wolsey's rising star, which ruled the ascendant 
for fifteen years. By keeping Parliament at a dis- 
tance and by playing upon the vain young King's 
Continental ambitions, Wolsey staved off the attack 
on the Church. But his power was built on a van- 
ishing base. The Treaty of Cambrai in 1529 closed 
the avenues to England's influence abroad, and made 
Henry's gaze introspective. It was as great a blow 
to Wolsey as his failure to obtain a divorce for his 
master,' and he was too great a statesman not to per- 
ceive what would be the effect. His failure in foreign 
policy would mean his fall, and his fall, as he re- 
peatedly told Campeggio, Du Bellay, and Clement 
Vn., would mean the irretrievable ruin of the Church 
in England." It was owing, wrote Campeggio, to 
Wolsey's vigilance and solicitude that the Holy 
See retained its authority ' ; and Du Bellay declared 
on the eve of Wolsey's fall that the intention was, 
as soon as he was gone, to attack the Church and to 
confiscate its riches ; he wrote the information in 
cipher, but said that such a precaution was really 
superfluous, because the policy was openly pro- 
claimed. He thought no ecclesiastic would again 
be made Chancellor, and predicted " terrible alarms" 
for the Church in the coming Parliament.* 

It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that the anti- 



'Z. and p., iv., 5231, 5581, 5679, 5701; and compare the present 
writer's Henry VIII., chapter iv. 

'^Ibid., iv., 4897, 5210, 5572, 5803, 5945. 

^Ibid., iv., 4898. 

* Ibid., iv., 6011, cf. iv., 5862, 5953, 5983, 5995,6017-18. 



68 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

ecclesiastical legislation of the Reformation Parlia- 
ment was no mere whim on the part of Henry VIII., 
or chance suggestion on the part of any adviser * ; it 
was so far dictated by circumstances that intelligent 
observers could predict its general tenor before that 
Parliament met. Wolsey fell, as he himself and 
others had foretold, and with him clerical influence 
was eliminated from the Government. The Chan- 
cellorship, which from time immemorial had been 
held by prelates,' was, as Du Bellay anticipated, 
entrusted to a layman, Sir Thomas More. The 
keepership of the Privy Seal, which had been occu- 
pied in Henry VIII. *s reign by three successive 
bishops, was now transferred to Anne Boleyn's father; 
the clerkship of Parliament, hitherto considered as 
peculiarly a clerical office, was given to Sir Edward 
North; and, though Gardiner remained Secretary, 
Du Bellay thought that his influence would have 
been much enhanced had he abandoned his spiritual 



^ In Mr. R. B. Merriman's Life and Letters of Cromwell (1902, 
chap, vi.) the credit or discredit of the whole business is attributed 
to Cromwell, mainly on the strength of Pole's assertion that Henry 
VIII. was despairing of success when this " emissary of Satan" 
came and suggested to him the repudiation of the Pope's authority. 
But Pole was writing nine or ten years after the event; he admits 
that he did not hear Cromwell's alleged advice to the King, and be- 
fore the interview is supposed to have taken place we are told in a 
contemporary letter that " nothing else was thought of every day in 
England except to arrange how to do without the Pope." (Z. and 
P., iv., 6774.) A biographer is often tempted to attribute great 
movements to the influence of one subordinate agent. 

"^ The only lay chancellor in the previous two centuries appears to 
have been Thomas Beaufort, chancellor 1410-12, and afterwards 
Duke of Exeter. 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 69 

calling.* The Government thus assumed an un- 
wonted lay complexion ; at the same time it was 
brought into harmony with the spirit which ani- 
mated the House of Commons, while the simultane- 
ous creation of half a dozen peers tended to equalise 
the temporal and spiritual vote in the House of 
Lords.' 

Parliament began its work in November, 1529, 
with bills to limit clerical fees for probate, to check 
the abuse of pluralities and non-residence, and to 
forbid the acquisition of breweries and tanneries by 
the clergy. These modest proposals at once pro- 
voked the cry of " The Church in danger !", as it had 
been provoked in 15 12 by a proposal to exempt 
spiritual persons below the rank of subdeacon from 
the *' benefit of clergy" if they had committed mur- 
der or felony.' ** My Lords," cried Bishop Fisher, 
"you see daily what bills come hither from the Com- 
mons' House, and all is to the destruction of the 
Church. For God's sake, see what a realm the 
kingdom of Bohemia was ; and when the Church 
went down, then fell the glory of that kingdom. Now 
with the Commons is nothing but ' Down with the 
Church !' And all this, meseemeth, is for lack of 
faith only."* The bills were rejected by means of 
the spiritual votes in the House of Lords ; and as a 

' L. and P., iv,, 6019. 

* Cf., J. H, Round, Peerage Studies, 1901, pp. 330-366. Mr. Round, 
in contending that the lay peers had a majority as early as 1534, ne- 
glects the fact that several of the lay peers were minors, and so 
could not vote, while a spiritual peer was never a minor. 

^Z. and P., II., i., 1313. 

* Hall, Chronicle, p. 766. 



7o Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

way out of the deadlock between the two Houses, 
Henry suggested a conference, in which the tem- 
poral peers, united with the Commons, outvoted the 
bishops and abbots and passed the bills.' In 1531, 
Convocation was compelled, under the threat of 
Prcemunire, to pay a large fine to the King and to 
give him the title " Supreme Head of the Church." 
Even in those degenerate days the proposal excited 
resistance, and the papal nuncio went down to stiffen 
the backs of the clergy. But it was all of no avail ; 
Archbishop Warham declared that ira principis 
mors est* and Convocation had to content itself with 
the qualifying clause, " as far as the law of Christ 
allows." It was, thought Chapuys, the Imperial 
ambassador, an empty phrase, for no one would ven- 
ture to dispute with the King the question where 
his supremacy ended and that of Christ began.' 

In 1532 the Act forbidding the payment of An- 
nates to Rome was passed, and the famous petition 
of the Commons against the clergy was presented.* 
On the assumption that there were no real abuses in 
the Church at that time, and that all the evidence of 
their existence is necessarily a false and malicious 



^ Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures ^ ed. 1887, p. 317. 

^Z. and P.^ vol. v., p. 137. 

^ Ibid.y v.. No. 105. 

* There are four drafts of this petition in the Record Office (see 
L. and P.^ v., 1016); one of them is printed in full by Mr. Merri- 
man (Z?/<? of Cromwell^ i., 104-111). Two of the drafts are in a 
strange handwriting, probably that of some independent member of 
Parliament ; these are filled with interlineations in Cromwell's 
hand, and it is probably from them that he prepared a copy to be 
submitted to the King. 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 7t 

libel, this petition has been represented as a Court 
concoction prepared to facilitate the evil designs of 
the King ; and the Commons are supposed to have 
been hypnotised into thebelief that they suffered from 
grievances which were entirely fictitious. However 
that may be, two sets of demands were laid before 
Convocation; one came from the King, the other 
was the petition of the Commons. Henry wished 
the Church to abdicate its right of independent 
legislation, to consent to a reform of ecclesiastical 
laws, and to recognise the necessity of the King's 
approval of existing canons. On the other hand 
the Commons complained of the citation of laymen 
out of their dioceses, the delays in obtaining probate 
and in the institution of parsons, the conferment 
of benefices on minors, the devotion of the clergy 
to worldly affairs, the exaction of heavy fees, and 
the harsh procedure of the spiritual courts in 
cases of heresy. These reforms were granted by 
Convocation; most of them passed the House of 
Commons ; but in the House of Lords, the bishops 
and abbots, aided by Sir Thomas More, rejected 
the demands of the King, while accepting those of 
the Commons. Before the end of the year Audley 
succeeded More as Chancellor, Cromwell stepped 
into Gardiner's shoes as Henry's chief adviser, and the 
lay element had become supreme in the Government, 
in both Houses of Parliament, and in the country at 
large. The Church in England had been forced into 
that dependence on the State from which she has 
never since been able or willing to shake herself 
free. 



72 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

Such were the conditions under which Cranmer ac- 
cepted the archiepiscopal See, and they must be taken 
into careful consideration in judging his action and 
in estimating his character. Apart from his adop- 
tion of the principles of the Reformation, which 
can only be a defect in the eyes of Roman Catho- 
lics, the worst suspicion under which he labours is 
that of having been in some sort a traitor to his 
order, of having handed over to secular hands the 
keys of ecclesiastical independence. The surrender 
of a position to the enemy is always an unpopular 
act, but it may in certain circumstances be neces- 
sary and patriotic. If the city is beleaguered with- 
out hope of succour, if the refusal to yield only means 
that it will be stormed and left to the uncovenanted 
mercies of the foe, the commander who takes upon 
himself the responsibility of capitulation is braver 
than he who declines. There can be no doubt that 
the Church in England, however distasteful the pro- 
cess may have been, was consulting both its own in- 
terests and those of the nation at large in seeking to 
come to terms with the secular power, and in en- 
deavouring, by the surrender of its least tenable 
rights and privileges, to retain as much as might 
be of its catholicity and its connection with the 
past. It may be asserted that, had Warham been a 
Becket, had the whole Church been animated with a 
spirit of firm resistance, it might have withstood the 
assault. But it is far more probable that its ruin 
would have been more irretrievable, its break with 
the past more complete. The course of the Reforma- 
tion in England might then have followed more 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 1'^^ 

closely its course in Germany or even in Switzer- 
land ; and so far from seeking only to remove 
abuses, men might have set themselves to raise a 
new edifice upon other foundations. The result 
would have probably been to kindle the flames of 
civil wars of religion. 

Further, it must be observed that it was not 
Cranmer who handed over the keys at all, but the 
prelate whom Roman Catholic writers describe as 
the " saintly and venerable Warham." * It was he 
who persuaded Convocation to acknowledge the 
royal supremacy, and he did so with less justification 
than Cranmer might have urged. For Warham be- 
lieved the royal supremacy to be an evil ; Cranmer 
thought it a good. Just before his death the aged 
Archbishop drew up a protest against the recent 
infractions of ecclesiastical immunities ' ; he recalled 
the case of Henry II. and hinted that Henry VIII. 
might go the way of other kings who had violated 
the liberties of the Church. Cranmer's view was 
different; he was profoundly impressed with the 
abuses in the Church, which for years he had ascribed 
to the papal jurisdiction. The only means of reform 
was the royal supremacy. He thought, as the vast 
majority of English churchmen have thought after 
him, that the Church gained more than it lost through 
its connection with the State, and he was not so 
foolish as to quarrel with the conditions upon which 
alone that connection was possible. These condi- 
tions had been laid down by others, and for them he 

^ Gasquet, Henry VIII. and the Monasteries^ 1893, i., 67 
•Z. and P., v., 1247. 



74 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

was not responsible. He entered upon his archiepis- 
copal career knowing perfectly well that his mission 
was to be, as Henry expressed it, " the principal minis- 
ter of our spiritual jurisdiction." * With that condi- 
tion, he would, even if he disliked it, be forced to 
comply ; the King who had broken Wolsey without 
an effort, and afterwards sent a Cardinal to the 
block, would not be deterred by Cranmer. 

For the present, however, the abolition of the papal 
jurisdiction added dignity to the Archbishopric of 
Canterbury. When, in 1 544, the Archbishop of York 
died, Cranmer assumed a function hitherto exercised 
by Popes, and sent his successor a pall." This was a 
solitary instance of the adoption by an English Arch- 
bishop of an expedient employed by the Popes to 
enhance their authority and fill their coffers'; but 
primates of England retained for a longer period the 
right of issuing dispensations and licences which pre- 
viously belonged to the Roman pontiff ; they were 
found useful in releasing Henry VHI. from incon- 
venient matrimonial bonds. For a year, too, the 
Archbishop's court remained the supreme tribunal in 
England for ecclesiastical causes, but its authority 
was soon limited by the legalisation of appeals from it 
to Chancery, and by the transference to secular courts 
of matters which had before been regarded as subject 

^ L. and P., vi., 332. 

-Bishop Stubbs in Gentleman's Magazine^ i860, ii., 522; Mason, 
Cranmer y p. 53. 

' Pole was the last Archbishop of Canterbury to wear the pall {cf. 
Burnet, ii., 545); it was an object of frequent denunciation (c/". Pil- 
kington, JVorks, p. 582, and Gough, Index to Parker Soc. Publ. 
s. V. "Pall"). 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 75 

to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Henry VIII. even 
meditated placing the marriage laws under the cog- 
nisance of civil tribunals/ but many generations 
passed away before this very modern idea was put 
into execution. 

Meanwhile the King's presumption in cutting the 
Gordian knot of the divorce question by having it 
decided in England roused Clement VII. to action; 
and on II July, 1533, the sentence of excommuni- 
cation was drawn up at Rome,' though its publica- 
tion was deferred. Henry thereupon withdrew his 
ambassadors from the papal court, confirmed the 
Act of Annates, and prepared an appeal from the 
Pope to a General Council. Clement, at last, was 
alarmed ; he began to fear that he really would lose 
his spiritual jurisdiction in England ; and he probably 
derived little comfort from the assurances of his 
Imperialist friends that, after all, England was but 
" an unprofitable island," and that its loss would be 
more than compensated by the increased devotion 
of Spain and of the other dominions of the Emperor.^ 
The appeal to a General Council was served on the 
Pope by Bonner* on 7 November, while Clement 
was visiting Francis I. at Marseilles^; and Cranmer 
was advised to intimate a similar appeal in case the 
Pope should **make some manner of prejudicial 
process against me and my Church.'' ' He accord- 

' Z. and P.^ v., 805; vii., 232. 

'^ Ibid., vi., 654-655, 807, 953. ^Ibid., vi., 997. 

* The future Bishop of London and champion of the Pope. 

* Z. and P., vi., 721, 998. 

^ Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, i., 31-32 ; Cranmer, Works, ii., 
268. 



7^ Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

ingly wrote to Bonner to ask him to do this service : 
but as the letter was not dated till 27 November, 
Cranmer's appeal was too late.* His apprehensions 
were well founded, for he was doubtless one of the 
bishops whom the Pope " cursed ** in the summer 
for their share in the divorce," and in September a 
brief was drawn up for his deprivation and excom- 
munication/ 

Henry's action in appealing to a General Council 
dashed the hopes which Francis I. entertained of 
effecting an accommodation between his old ally, 
England, and his new friend, the Pope.* He made, 
however, another effort by sending Du Bellay, 
Bishop of Paris, to London in the winter to induce 
Henry to resume negotiations with the papal court. 
Henry would only promise that if Clement would 
declare his first marriage null and his second valid, 
he would refrain from further measures against the 
Pope's authority. With these assurances the Bishop 
set out for Rome, and Burnet has a story," told on 
the authority of Du Bellay 's brother, of how a re- 
conciliation between England and Rome was only 
frustrated by the precipitation of the Imperialist 
cardinals, who refused to wait a few extra days for 



^ L. and P., vi., 1425; Burnet, Reformation, ed. Pocock, vol. vi., 
pp. 56-67. The Pope left Marseilles for Rome on 12 November. 

'Z. and P,, vi., 1055. 

^ Ibid.^ vi., 1 104. 

* " Ye have clearly marred all," he complained to the English am- 
bassadors; "as fast as I study to win the Pope, you study to lose 
him" {ibid,, vi., 1427). 

5 Burnet, Reformation, ed. Pocock, iii., 182-83; Du Bellay, Md- 
moires; cf. Z. and P., vol. vii., App. Nos. 8, 12, 13. 



1535] The Royal Supremacy ^^ 

the return of a courier. Burnet discerns the hand 
of Providence in this narrow escape from peace 
with Rome ; but in reaHty the promise of peace 
was quite illusory, and Parliament was at the mo- 
ment engaged in severing the last of the bonds 
between the English Church and the Roman See. 
Henry had, in fact, thrown off all disguise as soon as 
his specious appearance of conciliation had done its 
work, and his confirmation of the Act forbidding the 
payment of Annates to Rome' was ratified by a 
fresh Act, passed in the session of Parliament which 
lasted from January to March, 1534. This second 
Act of Annates defined the method henceforth to be 
observed for the appointment of English bishops. 
Chapters were to elect the candidate named in the 
King's letters missive, and if they failed to do so 
within twelve days the King might appoint by letters 
patent.' A second Act of Appeals, besides repeat- 
ing and confirming the abolition of appeals to Rome, 
embodied those concessions to the King which had 
been made by Convocation in 1532, but rejected in 
the House of Lords. Convocation was not to meet 
or legislate without the King's assent ; a commission, 
nominated by the King, might reform the Canon 
Law; there was to be an appeal from the Arch- 
bishop's court to Chancery ; and religious houses 
which were exempt from episcopal authority were 
subjected to that of the King. Another Act forbade 
the payment of Peter's pence ; and a check upon 
prosecutions for heresy was provided by an Act 



'Z. and p., vi., 793. 

' 25 Hen. VIII, c. 20 ; this was made the usual method in 1547, 



78 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

which required the evidence of two lay witnesses for 
every charge.' 

The final Act of that session was a constitutional 
innovation of great importance. The succession to 
the crown, which had hitherto been regulated by 
vague right, was now determined by a definite law to 
be vested in Henry's heirs by Anne Boleyn. This Act 
was to be enforced by an oath which might be ten- 
dered to any one, and at the head of the commission 
aippointed to administer it was the Archbishop of 
Canterbury." Among the first who were required to 
take the oath were Fisher and More ; both had been 
implicated in the previous year in the extraordinary 
affair of Elizabeth Barton,' the Nun of Kent, in 
whose alleged visions it is impossible to distin- 
guish the imposture from the genuine delusions. 
Some eight years before, she had earned a reputation 
for sanctity by denouncing the sensual lives of the 
clergy, and this reputation was afterwards used to 
put obstacles in the way of Henry's divorce. She 
drew, it is stated in the Confutation of Unwritten 
Verities doubtfully attributed to Cranmer, "into 
her confederacy, both of heresy and treason, holy 
monks of the Charter House, obstinate (they would 
be called Observant) friars of Greenwich, nice nuns of 
Sion, black monks (both of cowls and conditions) of 

'Cf. L. and P.^ vii., 393. 

^ His colleagues are given in L, and P. (vii., 391) as Audley, Nor- 
folk, and Suffolk ; Strype {Mem. of Cranmer, i. , 36) names Audley, 
Cromwell, and the Abbot of Westminster. 

^ For Elizabeth Barton see L. and P. and Spanish Calendar for 
1533-34 ; Wright's Suppression of the Monasteries (Camden Soc), 
pp. 13-34. 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 79 

Christ Church and St. Austin's of Canterbury, 
knights, squires, learned men, priests, and many 
other." ^ She predicted that Henry would lose his 
kingdom within seven months if he married Anne 
Boleyn, and declared that in her visions she had 
seen the very place in hell that was prepared for 
him.' This kind of prophesying would nowadays be 
safely left to confute itself, but in that superstitious 
age it was a source of public danger. The nun could 
scarcely be treated as innocuous when men like 
Warham and Fisher fell under her influence. War- 
ham is said, in a contemporary account, to have 
been diverted by her warnings from an intention 
to pronounce sentence in favour of Henry's divorce. 
Many others disaffected to the Government had 
held communications with her, including Queen Cath- 
erine's chaplains. More sought an interview with 
her, but was not deceived, and his name was struck 
out of the bill passed against her and her adherents. 
But Fisher believed in her holiness, and there is 
some point in Cromwell's remonstrance to him that 
he would have made a more careful inquiry before 
accepting her visions if she had approved instead 
of denouncing the King's proceedings.' It was 
Cranmer who took the first steps to expose the im- 
posture ; he saw the Nun of Kent in the summer 
of 1533,* and induced her to confess. In accord- 
ance with his invariable practice of making Parlia- 



* Cranmer, Works, ii., 65. 

' Gairdner, Church History, 1902, p. 144. 

• Burnet, ed. Pocock, iv., 195-201. 
^Cranmer, Works, ii., 252, 271-274. 

7 



8o Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

ment his accomplice in all acts of severity, Henry 
had her condemned by Act of Attainder, and she 
was executed in April, 1534. Cranmer, however, 
interceded earnestly and successfully on behalf of 
the monks of Christ Church, who had been among 
her dupes or accomplices/ 

Their connection with the Nun of Kent naturally 
suggested the administration to Fisher and More 
of the oath imposed by the Act of Succession ; a 
further reason may possibly be found in the sen- 
tence pronounced by the Pope on 23 March, 1534, 
in favour of the validity of Henry's marriage with 
Catherine of Aragon. The oath would serve as a 
useful touchstone of allegiance to the verdict of 
the Pope or to that of the English Church. So, 
on 13 April, Fisher and More were called before 
Cranmer and his colleagues at Lambeth.' The form 
of the oath had not been prescribed by Parliament, 
but drawn up by the commissioners ; and More, 
while willing to swear to the succession itself on 
the ground that that was a matter within the com- 
petence of Parliament, objected to the oath' and 
to the preamble of the Act because it contained a 
denial of Papal authority, which he maintained was 
incompatible with his conscience. Fisher also re- 
fused, and Cranmer, who was generally on the side 



* Cranmer, Works ^ ii., 271. 

* More, Works, p. 1528; Burnet, i., 256; Strype, Cranmer, i., 36- 

38. 

2 More's objections to the legality of the oath prompted an Act of 
Parliament, passed the next session, declaring the form of oath pro- 
posed by the commissioners to be the one intended by Parliament. 




SIR THOMAS MORE. 

AFTER THE PAINTING By HOLBEIN 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 8i 

of mercy, urged the King to accept the oath in the 
form in which they were willing to take it.* He 
thought this would be a sufficient recognition of 
Henry's authority, but the King discovered an im- 
plied assertion of that of the Pope. Cranmer's 
mediation proved vain, and Fisher and More were 
condemned to loss of goods and imprisonment for 
life. With their subsequent execution on the charge 
of maliciously trying to deprive the King of his title 
of Supreme Head of the Church Cranmer had, for- 
tunately for his reputation, nothing to do.' 

In the meantime Convocation, universities, and 
monasteries were occupied in debating the question 
whether the Bishop of Rome had any more author- 
ity in England than any other foreign bishop. In 
the previous year preachers had been required to 
proclaim the superiority of General Councils to 
Popes, and it had been ordered that the Pope should 
be officially styled plain Bishop of Rome. His au- 
thority in England was now repudiated with some- 
thing like unanimity. Fear, no doubt, had something 
to do with it, but the decision would hardly have 
become permanent had it been based on nothing but 
fear. In November, 1534, Parliament met once 
more to give legal effect to this repudiation of the 
Papal authority and to the recognition of Henry's 

* Z. and P., vii., 499, 500. 

' It is often said inaccurately that More was executed for refusing 
to take the Oath of Supremacy, though no oath was imposed by that 
Act and no penalty attached to its infraction. But the Treason Act, 
passed in the same session, made it high treason to attempt to de- 
prive the King of any of his titles, and it was on this Act that More 
was tried and condemned. 



82 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

ecclesiastical supremacy, conceded three years be- 
fore by Convocation. It went farther than Convo- 
cation had gone, and omitted the clause qualifying 
the supremacy. It professed only to corroborate and 
confirm a pre-existing right. The King's Majesty, 
it declared, ** justly and rightfully is and ought to be 
the Supreme Head of the Church of England," and it 
proceeded to annex and unite to the Imperial Crown 
" all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions* 
privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and com- 
modities to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the 
same Church belonging and appertaining."* The 
title was incorporated with the King's style by an 
order in council dated 15 January, 1535.' 

This Act of Supremacy is one of the shortest in 
the statute-book ; it remained in force for less than 
twenty years, and Henry VIII. was the only mon- 
arch who personally exercised for any length of time 
the powers it conferred.' He was also better quali- 
fied than any other English sovereign for the posi- 
tion. His morals, it is true, left much to be desired, 
but they were not worse than those of some Popes. 
His mind and conscience had been nourished on 
mediaeval scholastic philosophy and on mediaeval 
canon law, and throughout his reign his theological 
views were in general harmony with those of the 

»26 Henry VIII. c. i. 

*Z. and P.^ viii., 52. 

3 In Edward VI. 's reign the Supremacy was exercised by the Coun- 
cil; Mary was, of course, Supreme Head foi; the first year of her 
reign, but she soon abolished the title and it has never been re- 
stored. Elizabeth and her successors have only been styled '* su- 
preme governors." 



15351 The Royal Supremacy Ss 

majority of his clergy. He always believed in rites 
and ceremonies ; he might dally with Lutheranism, 
or rather permit his ministers to dally with it for 
political purposes, but he always remained a Catholic 
at heart. His convictions were not due to ignorance, 
for few men were so well read in heretical theology ; 
he kept a private cabinet full of Lutheran books 
and read them with eagerness and intelligence. He 
loved nothing better than a theological argument 
with his bishops, and most of them regarded his su- 
premacy not without reason as the most effectual 
bulwark against the storms of heresy which had sub- 
merged the Church in Germany. 

Nor did his extensive powers trench quite so much 
upon the Church's prerogative as has sometimes 
been supposed. The King's authority was only a 
potestas jurisdictionis and not at all a potestas or- 
dinis} The title " Supreme Head " was an offen- 
sive phrase, which implied to most men more than 
even Henry thought of claiming. It seemed to indi- 
cate a pretension to spiritual powers which were en- 
tirely outside the lay province. But Henry himself 
declared that the title conferred on him no new 
powers ; he never asserted ' that he could ordain a 



'See Makower, ConstiU Hist. Church of England, Eng. transl., 

p. 255. 

' Yet this question was debated among his bishops and others \ 
and Cranmer maintained that princes and governors might make 
bishops and so might the people by their election ; see Burnet, ed. 
Pocock, iv., 481-487; Strype, Cranmer, ii., 749-751; Jenkyns, ii., 
98, ei sqq., and Dixon, ii., 303-308. Some of the answers given in 
these documents indicate the high-water marks of what has been 
called " Byzantinism" in England. 



84 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

sub-deacon, baptise, marry, impose penance, pro- 
nounce absolution, let alone say mass. The whole 
sacramental system was left in the hands of the 
Church. The King was empowered in certain cir- 
cumstances to nominate bishops, but it was never 
assumed that such nomination conferred any spirit- 
ual powers; they were the result of confirmation 
and consecration at the hands of the Church. Henry 
claimed to control the machine, but he did not pre- 
tend to supply the motive power ; he might select 
the channels through which spiritual privileges 
flowed, but he was not the channel through which, 
nor the fountain from which, they flowed. He was 
willing, to use his own words, to leave the clergy 
control of men's souls, provided the State had con- 
trol of their bodies.* 

Again, it is necessary to guard against the idea 
that Henry forced a Church that was previously free 
under a galling Erastian yoke. Such a view errs as 
much in one direction as the view that Henry freed 
the Church does in the other. The freedom of the 
Church had long before shrunk to a shadow. Bishops 
and Abbots, who had once been freely elected by 
their chapters, had for centuries been joint nominees 
of Pope and King. A prelate depended exclusively 
upon the King for his temporalities and upon the 
Pope for his spiritualities." The representative idea 



^ L. and P.^ v., 1013. 

^ Archbishop Warham, shortly before his death, explained his view 
of the Pope's authority, which, as Warham was no extreme Papalist, 
may be accepted as correct (Z.. and P.^ v., 1247). His acts in con- 
secrating bishops were done, he says, in his capacity as commissary 



1535] The Royal Supremacy 85 

embodied in elections had gone out of them and left 
them a meaningless form ; while the supposed right 
of the English provinces to legislate independently 
of King and of Pope has been conclusively proved 
to be mainly a myth.* Had the jurisdiction of the 
Pope been only abolished, the English Church would 
undoubtedly have acquired that right ; but before 
the Papal jurisdiction was abolished Henry took 
care that Convocation should transfer to himself 
those legislative powers which the Pope had exer- 
cised. The Church in England was not freed from 
the yoke of an extraneous jurisdiction or from the 
burden of first-fruits and tenths ; they were merely 
transferred from the Pope to the King. Henry, in 
fact, neither liberated nor enslaved the Church ; he 
simply substituted a sole for a dual control. The 
change was no doubt acceptable to most, and it 
might appear like a liberation, because the despot- 
ism was a native and not an alien one. But it be- 
came at once more effective and more severe. Dual 
controls are usually inefficient, and between Kings 



of the Pope, and they were really the Pope's acts. Moreover, a 
bishop received his jurisdiction, not by election or consecration, but 
by being declared bishop in Consistory at Rome. The dependence 
of the English Church on Rome was therefore a reality, and no mere 
form. When it was abolished by the second Act of Annates, the 
confirmation of the bishop by other English bishops was obviously 
intended to take the place of the previous declaration in Consistory, 
which, according to Warham, really made a man a bishop. This 
confirmation was certainly not in intention the formality to which it 
has been reduced by practice and by a recent decision of the English 
courts. 

* Professor F. W. Maitland, The Roman Canon Law^ 1898. 



86 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

and Popes the Church had lapsed into impotent an- 
archy. The rigour of the new supremacy may best 
be justified on the plea that not otherwise could 
the Church have been reformed. 

It was, however, an expedient repugnant to mod- 
ern ideas. In the, latter years of Henry's reign "the 
King's doctrine" became the usual phrase for or- 
thodoxy. Such a condition could not be permanent, 
for it was opposed to the foundations of Protestant- 
ism as well as to those of Catholicism, and occasioned 
the simultaneous execution of martyrs to both faiths, 
the one class on the scaffold as traitors, the other 
at the stake as heretics.* It was only possible in days 
when a powerful sovereign could stand between the 
two opposing forces, balancing one against the other, 
and when regard for the State as represented in the 
King's person outweighed every other consideration. 
Henry's supremacy was personal, not parliamentary ; 
he and his daughter Elizabeth denied to their Parlia- 
ments any share in their ecclesiastical prerogative. 
Parliament and Convocation were co-ordinate legis- 
lative bodies, independent of one another, but sub- 
ject to the sovereign. Such was the Tudor system, 
but it barely outlived the Tudor dynasty. No other 
monarch has been able to wield their double sceptre ; 
and as the power of the Crown declined, its secular 
authority was seized by Parliament, which also at- 
tempted to grasp its ecclesiastical supremacy. Con- 

^ The most notorious. case occurred on 30 July, 1540, when Barnes, 
Jerome, and Gerrard were burnt for heresy, and Featherstone, 
Powell, and Abel were hanged for treason, all at Smithfield. (See 
Wriothesley, Chronicle^ Camden Soc, i., 120-121.) 



15351 The Royal Supremacy 87 

vocation disputed the claim, but was unable to 
vindicate its own, and the royal supremacy as 
exercised by Henry VIII. has died a natural death, 
leaving as yet no recognised successor, and a state of 
affairs not far removed from ecclesiastical anarchy. 



CHAPTER IV 

CRANMER AND REFORM 

" 'T'HAT our said Sovereign Lord shall have full 
1 power and authority from time to time to 
visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, 
and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, 
contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, 
which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdic- 
tion are or may lawfully be reformed, repressed 
. . . most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the 
increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the 
conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquillity of 
this realm." Such were the objects, as defined in 
the Act of Supremacy, which the King, armed with 
his two-edged sword of temporal and spiritual au- 
thority, now set out to accomplish. They were as 
vague as they were ample ; the Supreme Head 
might think that he had been girt with these weap- 
ons to reform abuses which heretics cast in the teeth 
of the Church, or he might imagine that he had been 
called to extirpate heresies which feebler Popes had 
failed to crush. Cranmer looked for the one consum- 
mation, and Gardiner hoped for the other ; and the 
parties which followed their lead fought a twelve- 

88 



[1533-1538] Cranmer and Reform 89 

years* fight for the control of the royal supremacy 
and the direction of England's ecclesiastical policy. 
Henry held the balance, inclining now to this side, 
now to that, as his political or personal ends made it 
desirable to cultivate friendship with Protestant or 
Catholic powers. When, in 1539, the King threw 
his whole weight into the scale against the New 
Learning, he did so partly because, as Bishop Stubbs 
has said,* he *' symbolised consistently with Gar- 
diner and not with Cranmer," but partly, perhaps, 
because he saw that unless he redressed the balance 
the Protestants would predominate, and the equi- 
librium, on which his power was based, would be 
destroyed ; and, as a matter of fact, the balance did 
turn decisively in their favour as soon as Henry 
Vni. was removed from the scene. 

The growth of the Protestant party and the de- 
velopment of its religious principles in England dur- 
ing the reign of Henry VHI. have been somewhat 
obscured by modern attempts' to minimise the influ- 
ence of Protestantism in England, and to emphasise 
both the continuity of Catholic doctrine in the Church, 
and the identity of the mediaeval Church in Eng- 
land with the modern Church of England.' The 



' Stubbs, Lectures on Mediceval and Modern History , ed. 1887, p. 
299. 

^ E, g.^ Canon Dixon's great work, The History of the Church of 
England^ iJJo-iS7^^ ^ vols. 

^ The excess to which the practice of exaggerating the independ- 
ence of the English Church during the Middle Ages, and of laying 
stress on its modern Catholicism has gone, has led one critic to affirm 
that some writers believe the Church to have been Protestant before 
the Reformation and Catholic after it. 



90 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

Church is of course the same Church before and 
after the Reformation, but then Saul and Paul were 
the same man before and after conversion, and proof 
of the identity does not refute the change. Men do 
not change their bodies when they change their 
minds, and an institution may preserve its outward 
form while its spirit is altered. Except for the sub- 
stitution of the royal for the papal supremacy, the 
Church retained its organisation almost intact, but 
the intention which underlay its forms and its form- 
ularies was profoundly modified by Cranmer him- 
self, and by the influence of the new doctrines which 
are conveniently if not quite accurately described as 
Protestant.* 

The origin of these new doctrines or heresies in 
England is not correctly ascribed to Luther; the 
spread of Lutheranism on the Continent undoubt- 
edly gave impetus to the movement in England, but 
the views of the English Reformers approach so 
much more nearly to those of Wycliffe than to those 
of Luther, that the Englishman rather than the Ger- 
man must be regarded as the morning star of the 
Anglican Reformation. Even as Wycliffe had done, 
so Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper looked to 
the State to reform a corrupt Church ; like him they 



^ The term properly applies only to those who adopted the Protest 
drawn up by some of the German princes against the decrees of the 
Diet of Spires in 1529, but the need of some common designation 
for the religious opponents of Rome led to its use outside Germany, 
and it began to be applied to English Reformers in the reign of Ed- 
ward VI. (See the present writer's Tudor Tracts^ p. xxiii., note). It 
was of course never admitted into the formularies of the English 
Church. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 91 

regarded the wealth of the clergy as an impediment 
to the exercise of spiritual influence, and, like him, 
they gradually receded from the Catholic doctrine 
of the mass. Most of the English Reformers were 
acquainted with Wycliffe's works ; Cranmer declares 
that he set forth the truth of the Gospel,* Hooper 
recalls how he resisted " the popish doctrine of the 
mass,'" Ridley how he denied transubstantiation,' 
and Bale how he denounced the friars* ; and it is 
not perhaps without significance that Henry VHL 
himself in 1530 sent to Oxford for a copy of the arti- 
cles on which Wycliffe had been condemned/ The 
control of the press exercised by the authorities pre- 
vented his works being printed, but numbers of them 
circulated in manuscript, and Bale records " with tri- 
umph that, in spite of the efforts to suppress them, 
not one had utterly perished. 

" It is certain," says Dr. Rashdall, " that the Reforma- 
tion had virtually broken out in the secret bible-readings 
of the Cambridge reformers before either the trumpet- 
call of Luther or the exigencies of Henry VIH/s per- 
sonal and political position set men free once more to 
talk openly against the pope and the monks, and to teach 
a simpler and more spiritual gospel than the system 
against which Wyclifife had striven." ' 

It is not probable that all the cases of heresy 
which occurred in the early years of Henry VHI.'s 



'Cranmer, Works, i., 14. 'Hooper, Works, i., 527. 

"Ridley, Works, p. 158. '•Bale, Select Works, p. 171. 

^Z. and P., iv., 6546. 'Bale, Works, p. 140. 

'Z>iV/. of Nat. Biog., art. " Wycliffe," Ixiii., 218. 



92 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

reign were due to the lingering subterranean influ- 
ence of Wy cliff e, and the popular tract, Wy cliff es 
Wicket^ the possession of which was frequently made 
a charge against their victims by the clerical courts, 
was not from the Reformer's pen. But of the pre- 
valence of heretical opinions in England before Lu- 
ther's revolt against Indulgences there is ample 
evidence. Foxe recounts the martyrdom of ten 
men and women between 1509 and 15 18; many 
suffered a less extreme form of persecution, and in 
the year 15 17 alone thirty-five persons in the diocese 
of London were forced to abjure their opinions.^ 
Nor does Foxe*s witness stand alone ; occasionally 
instances of heresy are mentioned in the State pa- 
pers,' and on 8 November, 151 1, Ammonius, Henry 
VIII.'s Latin secretary, writing to his friend Eras- 
mus, attributes the scarcity and dearness of wood to 
the holocaust caused by the heretics.' It was a grim 
and heartless joke, no doubt ; but there would have 
been no point in it unless there had been a notable 
number of heretics burnt. And the secretary's letter 
proceeds to state that his servant's brother, " lout as 
he is, has founded a sect and has his followers.'* 
Three months later the movement had become so 
pronounced that Warham summoned a convocation 
of his province for the express purpose of extirpat- 



' Foxe, Acts and Monuments y iv., 206. 

^E. g., Z. and P., i., 1381; cf. H. E. Jacobs, The Lutheran 
Movement in England, p. 3 ; "as late as 152 1, the Bishop of London 
arrested nearly five hundred Lollards, who probably had no connec- 
tion with the movement then beginning in Germany." 

^ Ibid., i., 1948. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 93 

ing heresy.* In October, 15 16, More declared that 
the EpistolcB Obscurorum Virorunty that scathing 
attack on the clergy, was popular everywhere.* Two 
months later one Humphrey Bonner was accused of 
ridiculing the Holy See in his sermons,* and Henry's 
famous book against Luther appears to have been 
begun in the spring of 15 18,* before Luther had 
attracted any attention outside Germany, and to 
have been originally directed against heretics among 
his own subjects. 

Under these circumstances Luther's books and 
doctrines fell upon fruitful soil in England. In 1 521 
Oxford was said to be infected with Lutheranism,' 
and at Cambridge it was even more prevalent. 
Henry VIII.'s book and the solemn committal to 
the flames of Luther's writings in St. Paul's Church- 
yard on 1 2th May in that year, before Wolsey, the 
Papal nuncio, and other high dignitaries, did little to 
stop the infection ; and during the next ten years 
the German Reformer's views gained ever wider ac- 
ceptance in England. Anne Boleyn and her father 
were once described by Chapuys as being more Lu- 
theran than Luther himself "; and even Henry VHI. 
was beginning to look with lenient eyes on men who 
might be useful pawns in the struggle with Rome.' 

' L. and P., i., 4312. ^ Ibid.^ ii., 2492. ^ Ibid., ii., 2692. 

^ Ibid.^ ii., 4257. Henry was certainly engaged in writing a book 
at that time, and its arguments were submitted to Wolsey and to 
other "great learned men." Nothing more is heard of it until 1521. 

^ Ibid,, iii., 1193. ^ Ibid., v., 148. 

' In 1529 he ordered Wolsey to discharge the Abbot of Reading, 
who was accused of Lutheranism, "unless the matter be very hei- 
nous."— (/i5/</., iv., 5925; cf. Ibid., iv., 6325, 6385; v., App. 7.) 



94 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

But not every one who was called Lutheran in 
England adopted the doctrines of Wittenberg ; the 
phrase was a generic term used to express any sort 
of hostility to Rome or the clergy, and even the pos- 
session of the Bible in English was sometimes suffi- 
cient to make its owner a Lutheran suspect. The 
number of Englishmen who were really Lutherans 
was probably small, and Cranmer at the time of his 
appointment as Archbishop was certainly not one of 
them. He may have been affected to some extent 
by Osiander's views during his stay in Germany, but 
it is doubtful whether Osiander himself could pro- 
perly be called a Lutheran. 

The pressing need in Cranmer's eyes and in those 
of most reforming churchmen was not a change of 
doctrine so much as a change of conduct, and the 
revival of Scriptural knowledge among both clergy 
and laity. As soon as he had been enthroned at 
Canterbury (3 December, 1533), he commenced a 
visitation of his diocese. In 1534 he directed his 
commissary to visit Norwich, where the Bishop had 
distinguished himself by the persecution of Bilney' 
and other reformers. Next followed a metropolitical 
visitation of the southern province. It involved 
Cranmer, as it had generally involved his predeces- 
sors, in disputes with his suffragan bishops. Per- 
sonal jealousy embittered the quarrel; probably 
both Gardiner of Winchester and Stokesley of Lon- 
don considered that they had better claims than 
Cranmer to sit in Augustine's chair ; and they were 



*See Diet. Nat. Biogr.^ v., 40. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 95 

naturally disposed to resent his visitation, because 
their own sympathies were conservative and the 
Archbishop's were in favour of change. Gardiner 
objected that his See had been visited not long be- 
fore by Warham, and in his zeal for the royal su- 
premacy he made the not very scrupulous protest 
that Cranmer's assumption of the title " primate " was 
an infraction of the King's ecclesiastical prerogative. 
He seems to have thought that all bishops should be 
equal under the Crown — at least so long as Cranmer 
was Archbishop ; and indeed a proposal was put 
forward in Parliament in 1532 for the transference 
to the King of the primate's powers over his bis- 
hops.* Stokesley cavilled at the use of the style 
legatus natus of the Apostolic See, which had be- 
longed to Archbishops of Canterbury for centuries, 
and had not yet been legally abolished. The King, 
however, upheld Cranmer in both cases, and his 
visitation duly proceeded. Another attempt, insti- 
gated, probably, by personal enmity to Cranmer, was 
made against his primatial dignity. The Archbishop 
of Canterbury was head of two ecclesiastical courts, 
the Court of Arches and the Court of Audience, in 
the latter of which he heard appeals from other dio- 
ceses besides his own. It was now asserted that 
former Archbishops held this court only in virtue of 
their legatine authority from the Pope, and that, the 
Papal jurisdiction having been repudiated, the Court 
of Audience had no legal basis." Cranmer contested 

»Z. and p., v., 850. 

'See the reply to the Archbishop printed by Strype {Cranmer, ii., 
714-716); the " order concerning the Proctors of the Court of Arches," 



96 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

this idea and appears again to have been upheld by 
Henry ; but eventually the other view prevailed, and 
when, in very recent times, an Archbishop once more 
held a Court of Audience at Lambeth, the " court " 
was admitted to be no real court at all, and its de- 
cisions to have no legal binding power.* 

Meanwhile, in 1534, Cranmer issued a pastoral in 
which he enjoined silence respecting masses for the 
dead, prayers to saints, pilgrimages, and the celibacy 
of the clergy. These practices were the subject of 
much denunciation, and Cranmer hoped that within 
a year an authoritative decision on these points would 
be adopted. He also persuaded Convocation to pe- 
tition for an authorised version of the Bible in Eng- 
lish. Four years before, there had been a persistent 
rumour that Henry was in favour of this measure"; 
but the tendencies encouraged by Tyndale's trans- 
lations alarmed the King, and his promise of the 
boon was made conditional upon the abandonment 
of unorthodox views." So now the petition of Con- 
vocation was accompanied by a demand for the 
suppression of heretical books. Cranmer also, in con- 
junction with Cromwell and Anne Boleyn, used his 
influence to procure the promotion of Reformers 
to the bench of Bishops. He had long befriended 



which Strype attributes to Cranmer, seems to have been really due 
to Warham, and the protest against it which he prints {Ibid., ii., 717- 
728) to belong to 1^32 or some earlier date. 

1 Cf. Canon MacCoU, The Reformation Settlement^ loth ed., p. 

567. 
^L.andP.,\y., 6385. 
2/<?^„iv., 6487. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 97 

Latimer,* who in 1535 was appointed to the See of 
Worcester ; Shaxton was made Bishop of Salisbury, 
Foxe of Hereford, Hilsey of Rochester, and Bar- 
low of S. David's, with the result that for a few 
years the episcopal bench was more inclined to re- 
form than the lower house of Convocation. Never- 
theless the conservative element on the bench 
frustrated for the time Cranmer's projected Bible in 
English. He divided the task of revision among 
various prelates, and Gardiner performed his portion, 
but Stokesley did nothing, declaring that it was 
" abusing the people to give them liberty to read the 
Scriptures." ' 

The year 1535 was, however, notable mainly for 
the visitation of the monasteries under the authority 
of Thomas Cromwell, who, to the derogation of the 
Church, had been appointed Henry's Vicar-General 
in ecclesiastical matters. To facilitate his operations 
all episcopal jurisdictions, including Cranmer's, 
were for the time suspended, and so the Archbishop 
of Canterbury was relieved of all responsibility for 
the methods employed to destroy the monasteries. 
That the monasteries needed drastic reformation 
Cranmer was no doubt convinced, and he probably 
had little sympathy with the principle of monasti- 
cism ; but he can have had no enthusiasm for the way 
in which their vast estates were used to bribe the laity 
into supporting Henry's government. Without de- 
nying that the county families and noble houses, 

'In 1533 all the prelates except Cranmer were said to be demand- 
ing Latimer's suppression. (Z. and P,^ vi,, 1249.) 
' Strype, Cranmer ^ i., 48. 



98 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

founded on the spoils of the Church, have thereby 
been enabled in the past to do their country some 
service, it may be doubted whether the permanent 
results have been beneficial ; and it may be admitted 
that from the point of view of education and of pro- 
vision for the sick and poor, the dissipation of 
monastic property was a waste of one of the most 
splendid opportunities in English history. 

Another tragedy, with which Cranmer was more 
nearly concerned, was enacted in 1536. Whether 
Anne Boleyn was guilty or innocent of the charges 
on which she was beheaded is a question with which 
Cranmer's biographer is not called upon to deal,* 
for the Archbishop's part in the matter related not 
to the Queen's death, but to her divorce. He was 
inexpressibly shocked at her fall, and, so far 
as we know, he was the only man of the time 
who had the courage to plead with Henry on her 
behalf. He had never had better opinion in 
woman, he wrote, than he had in her ; and next to 
the King he was most bound unto her of all creatures 
living; he ventured to express a hope that she 
would be found innocent, and even reminded Henry 
that he, too, had offended God.* Anne was, how- 
ever, condemned by a court of twenty-six temporal 
peers, over which her uncle presided, and Cranmer 
was then called in to pronounce her divorce. The 
reasons for this extraordinary step are still obscure, 
and the grounds on which the divorce was declared 

* I have discussed the point in my Henry VIII. , chap. v. 
' Works. ^ ii., 324 ; see also Paul Friedmann, Anne Boleyn^ 1884, 
vol. ii., chap. xvii. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 99 

were kept profoundly secret. Why, if Henry merely 
wanted to get rid of his Queen, was he not satisfied 
with her execution ? What object could possibly be 
served by proclaiming the marriage to have been null 
from the beginning, and by bastardising the Princess 
Elizabeth as well as the Princess Mary ? It may be 
that Henry had become sensitive to the force of 
public opinion against the marriage, for his envoys 
had just failed to persuade the Lutherans of its 
validity. Anne, moreover, had had at least two 
miscarriages ; similar misfortunes had convinced 
Henry of the nullity of his marriage with Catherine, 
and conscientious scruples grow by what they 
feed on. 

However this may be, Cranmer had to decide the 
question by canon law ; and the hopeless confusion 
into which canon law had fallen now that the Papal 
jurisdiction, the keystone of the arch, had been 
abolished, gave rise to the strangest anomalies. 
Two canonical objections to the marriage were 
raised. The first was an alleged precontract be- 
tween Anne and the Earl of Northumberland, 
which was supported by some circumstantial evi- 
dence, although the Earl himself solemnly denied 
its existence. There was a more valid objection. 
Henry's previous relations with Mary Boleyn had 
created an affinity between him and her sister 
Anne, which, by canon law, was a bar to their mar- 
riage. For this reason Henry had obtained a dis- 
pensation from Clement VH. in 1528 ; but since that 
date the Pope's dispensing power had been repudi- 
ated, and the old canonical objection was therefore 



loo Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

revived.* The King in his anxiety to divorce Cath- 
erine had denied the power of the Pope to dispense ; 
by so doing he had, probably without realising it 
a:t first, invalidated his marriage with Anne, which 
rested upon the same dispensing power. The 
realisation of this fact, stimulated no doubt by his 
failure to obtain recognition for her in any quarter 
outside England, was probably responsible for her 
divorce, though not for her death ; and, monstrous 
as it seems from the point of view of justice and 
equity, the divorce of Anne Boleyn was probably 
legal. A less opportunist government than that of 
Henry VIII. would have endeavoured to put the 
existing canon laws on a firmer and more reasonable 
basis, but the King had already enough on his 
hands, and the position of the canon law in England 
has to this day remained somewhat anomalous. 

On the day (19 May) that Anne Boleyn was be- 
headed, Cranmer granted Henry a special licence to 



* There are some objections to this view. Firstly, the affinity 
created by Henry's relations with Mary Boleyn was different from 
the affinity created by Prince Arthur'^s marriage w^ith Catherine; 
the former was only held to be an obstacle by canon law, the 
latter by Divine law; and many would have admitted the Pope's 
power to dispense with canon law, who denied his power to dis- 
pense with Divine laws. Secondly, in the tract on the divorce attrib- 
uted to Cranmer (Burnet, ed. Pocock, iv., 146), it is asserted that an 
affinity fatal to marriage is only created nuptiali fcedere. On the 
other hand, the Pope's dispensing power had been denied altogether, 
and it is by no means clear that Cranmer's views (if they were Cran- 
mer's) on affinity had been recognised as canon law in England in 
1536. Chapuys definitely states (Z. and /*., xi., 41) that the ground 
of Cranmer's sentence was Henry's relations with Mary Boleyn, and 
not Anne's precontract with Northumberland. 




Copyright by J. Lowy. 
LADY JANE SEYMOUR. 

AFTER THE PAINTING BY HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER, NOW AT VIENNA. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform loi 

marry a third wife.* Jane Seymour was descended 
on her mother's side from Edward III., and the 
stringency of the canon law was still so great that 
the Archbishop had to grant at the same time a dis- 
pensation relieving the parties from the impediment 
to their marriage arising from consanguinity. They 
were betrothed on the 20th and were privately mar- 
ried at York Place ten days later.' After sixteen 
months Queen Jane gave birth on 12 October, 1537, 
to the future Edward VL, over whose birth, wrote 
Latimer, there was as much joy as over that of S. 
John the Baptist. Cranmer was godfather to the 
infant at his christening on the 15th.' Nine days 
afterwards the Queen died. Had she lived she 
would have saved Henry and the English Church 
from the serio-comic episode of Anne of Cleves and 
from the tragedy of Catherine Howard. 

From these unsavoury matters of royal matrimony 
the Archbishop turned with relief to more congenial 
work. In February, 1536, he had preached a nota- 
ble sermon in S. Paul's Churchyard, "and," writes 
Chapuys, " of the two hours that he preached one 
and a half were occupied with blasphemies against 
His Holiness and his predecessors.* The special 



^ The expression is not strictly correct ; according to Henry's 
view, which was endorsed by the Church, Catherine of Aragon and 
Anne Boleyn had never been his wives, so Jane Seymour was the 
first. 

' They are often incorrectly said to have been married on the day 
after Anne's execution. It does not appear who officiated. 

' Strype, Eccl. Memorials, I., ii,, i-io ; Cranmer did not perform 
the ceremony. 

^ L. and P., x., 282, 283. 



I02 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

object of his discourse appears to have been not, as 
Chapuys impUes, to deny the existence of purga- 
tory, that dim realm in which were laid the unseen 
foundations of the Roman Church, but to denounce 
the idea that Popes could release men's souls from 
durance. He also sought, according to Chapuys, to 
prove that all the Scriptural passages about Anti- 
christ referred to the Italian pontiff; and if so, he 
entered upon a sort of controversy of which the an- 
nals of the Reformed churches are too full. 

Other doctrines besides that of purgatory occupied 
the bishops' attention. *' The prelates here," writes 
Chapuys on i April, *' are daily in communication 
in the house of the Archbishop of Canterbury for 
the determination of certain articles and for the re- 
form of ecclesiastical ceremonies." ^ They were, in 
fact, engaged in debates which resulted in the Ten 
Articles, the first definition of the faith put forward 
under the royal supremacy. It was a compromise 
between the old faith and the new ; but it was a vic- 
tory for the latter, in so far as " no compromise" had 
hitherto been the Catholic attitude. The matter was, 
indeed, started in Convocation in June in the form of 
a complaint preferred by the lower house of sixty- 
seven Lutheran errors then current in England which 
the clergy thought should be repressed." Fuller says 
these errors contained " the Protestant religion in 
ore " ; and it was not likely that Cranmer and the 
newly appointed prelates of the upper house would 



* L, and P.^ x., 6oi. 

- These are printed in Fuller's Church History, 1656, bk. v., 
209-212, or ed. Brewer, 1845, !"•» 128-136. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 103 

consent to their indiscriminate condemnation. The 
result seems to have been a deadlock between the 
two parties, and Henry VIII. took the matter into 
his own hands/ and himself penned a set of articles. 
These were revised by Cranmer and laid before 
Convocation by Bishop Foxe on ii July; and the 
clergy who in the same session admitted Dr. Petre 
to the highest seat in their assembly on the ground 
that he was Cromwell's proctor, and Cromwell was 
the Supreme Head's Vicegerent,' did not venture to 
reject the royal theology. 

The articles were passed, subscribed, and printed.' 
Five were devoted to points of faith and five to 
ceremonies. Three sacraments, baptism, penance, 
and the Eucharist, were strongly upheld ; works of 
charity were declared to be necessary to salvation, 
auricular confession was not to be contemned, and 
justification could only be attained " by contrition 
and faith, joined with charity." Images were to 
stand in the churches, saints to be invoked as inter- 
cessors, the usual Catholic ceremonies to be observed, 
and prayers to be offered for the departed. On the 
other hand, the Bible and the three Creeds were to 
be regarded as the standard of orthodoxy, a position 



^ L. and P., xi., iiio ; the King says "he was constrained to put 
his own pen to the book and conceive certain articles which were 
agreed upon by Convocation." Cf. ibid., Nos. 59, 123, 377, 954. 

'See Wilkins, Concilia, iii., 803. 

^ They are printed in full from the Convocation records (soon 
afterwards burnt) in Fuller's Church History, 1656, bk. v., 213- 
225 (or in 1845 ed., vol, iii., 145-159), and from Cotton MS., 
Cleopatra, E. v., p. 59, in Pocock's Burnet, iv., 272-290; an 
epitome is given in Strype's Cranmer, i., 58-62. 



I04 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

from which the Reformed Church of England has 
never varied ; amendment of life was pronounced a 
necessary part of penance, faith was joined with 
charity as necessary to justification, and the article 
on the Eucharist did not go beyond an assertion of 
the Real Presence ; there was to be no censing, kneel- 
ing, or offering to images; the invocation of the 
saints was "to be done without any vain supersti- 
tion, as to think that any saint is more merciful, or 
will hear us sooner than Christ " ; ceremonies were 
declared to have no " power to remit sin " nor masses 
to deliver souls from purgatory. The mention of 
only three sacraments does not perhaps imply a re- 
pudiation of the other four, though the attempt then 
made to introduce a fourth, the sacrament of holy 
orders, failed. On the whole, the Ten Articles were 
a notable advance towards the purification of the 
Church, and Cranmer and his reforming colleagues 
had reason to feel satisfied that they had brought 
the King thus far. Many of the worst abuses had 
been removed at least from the seat of authority; 
the whole system of Indulgences, which had pro- 
voked Luther's revolt, was repudiated ; the polythe- 
ism, into which popular worship of saints and images 
tended to degenerate, was checked ^ ; and amend- 
ment of life rather than performance of useless 
penances was held up as the true symbol of re- 
pentance. The Articles were, in fact, an excellent 
embod|^ ent of the practical, as distinguished from 
the doctrinal Reformation, which was the first and 
foremost object of the movement. 

' Cf. Hallam, Hist, of England, 1884, i., p. 87. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 105 

The same practical object is apparent in the In- 
junctions* issued by Cromwell in August to enforce 
the Ten Articles. Attention was called to the fact 
that the Articles distinguished the " real doctrine of 
Salvation" from the *' rites and ceremonies of the 
Church, " that the people might know *' what was 
necessary in religion, and what was instituted for the 
decent and politic order of the Church." Supersti- 
tion, holy-days, images, relics, miracles, and pilgrim- 
ages were to be discouraged, and men were exhorted 
to keep God's commandments, to provide for their 
families, and to bestow what they could afford on 
the poor rather than spend it in offerings to relics 
and images or in making pilgrimages to shrines. 
The clergy were to urge fathers to teach their child- 
ren the Paternoster, the Articles of Faith, and the 
commandments in their mother-tongue, and to bring 
them up in learning or in some honest occupation or 
trade. A Bible in Latin and English" was to be 
provided in the choir of every church for every man 
to read. The clergy were to eschew taverns and ale- 
houses, cards or other unlawful games, and to set an 
example to others by devoting their leisure to the 
study of the Scriptures and by the purity of their 
lives ; they were to expend a fortieth of their in- 
comes on the poor, and if they had a hundred 
pounds ' or more a year they were to provide 
exhibitions for poor scholars at some school or 



* Printed in Pocock's Burnet, iv., 308-313. 
2 See below, pp. 1 12-1 14. 

^It is necessary to multiply sums of money by ten, twelve, or even 
fifteen to bring them up to their present value. 



io6 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

university. The ecclesiastical government of Henry 
VIII. has been bitterly, and in some respects, 
justly, denounced, but at least it set before the 
Church some ideals which have not yet been at- 
tained. 

Nor were the reforms which Henry did accom- 
plish allowed to pass without protest. Reaction was 
gathering its forces, and while Cromwell was de- 
nouncing pilgrimages to the shrines of the saints, 
another sort of pilgrimage was organising from which 
he and his colleagues had more to fear. It is not, 
however, quite accurate to represent the rising in 
northern England in the autumn of 1536, known as 
the Pilgrimage of Grace, as exclusively a religious 
movement ; the first acts of rebellion broke out not 
against the visitors of monasteries, but against the 
collectors of taxes; and while the people in the 
north undoubtedly suffered from the break-up of 
monastic establishments, they had other grievances 
and feared other ills. The second article of the 
Lincolnshire rebels was a demand for the repeal of 
the recent Statute of Uses. The enclosure move- 
ment was responsible for at least as many homeless 
vagrants as the ejection of the monks from their 
cells, and evicted tenants had no pensions like the 
monks to alleviate their sufferings. More prosperous 
people, too, were alarmed by reports that taxes were 
to be levied on every baptism, marriage, and burial, 
and fines on the beasts of the field; that churches 
within five miles of another were to be destroyed as 
superfluous, and their jewels and plate confiscated ; 
and that there was to be a rigid inquisition into every 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 107 

man's property. These seditious rumours did their 
work, and in the autumn of 1536 Lincolnshire first 
and Yorkshire next flamed out in revolt. It was a 
great opportunity for the Pope's adherents in Eng- 
land, but even the most reactionary of the English 
CathoHcs seemed to have little enthusiasm for the 
Papal cause. His claims to spiritual supremacy 
were mentioned during the conference at Pontefract, 
but it was suggested that he should delegate his 
functions to the Archbishops of Canterbury and 
York, ** so that the said Bishop of Rome have no 
further meddling."* The popular demand in the 
north, so far as religion was concerned, seems to 
have been for the restoration of Catholicism minus 
the Pope, and one of the rebels' articles went to the 
root of the whole conflict between mediaeval and 
modern ideas. It denied the power of any nation 
to repudiate received canon laws without the consent 
of a General Council " ; that was the old ideal against 
which England protested by asserting her right to 
reform her national Church herself. Cranmer was 
naturally singled out for attack, both as a patron of 
heretics and because of his sentence against Catherine 
of Aragon. ^ The rebels demanded that he should 
be handed over to them, or banished the realm, and 
one of .their popular songs ran *: 



^ L. and P., xi., 1182, 1244, 1246. 

^ Ibid, xi., 1 182 ; this denial does not support a modern theory that 
canon laws were not valid in England unless confirmed by the Eng- 
lish Church. 

^ Ibid, xi., 1 182. 

*Ibid, xi., 786. 



io8 Thomas Cranmer [1533 

C^rim,' Cran,* and Riche,' 
With three L* and their liche. 
As some men teach, 
God them amend. 
And that Aske ^ may, 
Without delay, 
Here make a stay, 
And well to end. 

South of the Trent, however, the old faith had no 
such staunch friends as Aske and his followers, and 
early in 1537 the revolt was quenched, or rather 
burnt itself out. It may have taught Henry to be 
cautious in religious innovations, and possibly to its 
influence may be traced the fact that the four sacra- 
ments which had been omitted from the Ten Articles 
of 1536 were included in the Institution of a Christian 
Many published in 1537. This was an exposition of 
the orthodox faith, as understood in England, on 
which the Bishops were engaged from February 
until June ; but all their prolonged debates produced 
no better definition of the Faith than that contained 
in the King's Ten Articles. The insistence on the 



' /. e., Cromwell. 

"^ Cranmer. 

^ Richard, first baron Rich, Solicitor-General and afterwards 
Lord Chancellor; %e&Dict. Nat. Biog., xlviii., 123-127; the name was 
no doubt pronounced as it is in German, Reich, and would rhyme 
with "liche, " which is simply " like." 

^ Possibly Leigh and Layton, the two royal visitors of monasteries, 
and Latimer; Lee, Archbishop of York, is probably not intended, 
but Longland of Lincoln might be one, and even Dr. London might 
have a claim. 

^ The leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 109 

seven sacraments was the only concession made to 
the reactionary party, and the doctrine of Purgatory 
was repudiated as emphatically as before. Never- 
theless Henry VIII. took no responsibility for the 
book ; he had not had time, he wrote in August,* to 
examine it properly, but he trusted to the wisdom of 
his prelates and gave his consent to its publication. 
It was accordingly known as The Bishops Book, and 
the preface written by Bishop Foxe of Hereford 
declares that it represented the final and unanimous 
agreement of the assembled Bishops and divines.' 

The same year saw the publication of the first au- 
thorised version of the Bible in English, a project on 
which Cranmer had long set his heart. Versions of 
the Scriptures in vernacular tongues had existed for 
some time both in England and on the Continent, 
and with a view to belittling the work of the Re- 
formers, their importance has lately been much ex- 
aggerated. For they were made from the Vulgate, 
which was itself a bad translation of inferior versions 
of the orginal documents. Tyndale's was the first 
English translation from the original Hebrew and 
Greek, and Tyndale's has been condemned and 
burnt not so much because of the errors which it un- 
doubtedly contained, as because of the approaches it 



' Subsequently, however, he made a considerable number of anno- 
tations upon it which Cranmer took the liberty to criticise. Henry's 
notes and Cranmer's criticisms are printed in Jenkyns' Cranmer, ii., 
21 et sqq., and in the Parker Society's edition of Cranmer's Works, 
ii., 83 et sqq. ; cf. also ibid., ii., 359-360. 

' It was issued in Sept., 1537 ; the revision of it published in 1543 
was known as The Kinz^s Book. 



no Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

'fl 

made to truth. It was shocking to a generation 
which believed that Jesus Christ had endowed the 
Church with the institutions, rites, and ceremonies it 
possessed in the sixteenth century, to find npea- 
fivrepo^ translated "elder" instead of "priest," 
iuKkrfaia as " congregation " instead of " church," 
ixsravoeiv as " repent " instead of " do penance," 
and ayocTtrf as " love " instead of " charity." Sir 
Thomas More had no objection to the truth being 
made known to the select few, but an attempt like 
Tyndale's to bring it home to " the boy that driveth 
his plough " he regarded as " a design to depreciate 
the authority of an ordained priesthood and of an 
organised Church." ^ More's views in this matter 
were shared by Henry VIII. and by most of his 
Bishops; but in 1534 Cranmer had induced Con- 
vocation to petition for another English version, and 



* Gairdner, The English Church in the Sixteenth Century, 1902, 
pp. 190-1. Dr. Gairdner appears to agree with More in considering 
Tyndale's translation of the Scriptures as " a mischievous perversion 
of those writings intended to advance heretical opinions." Tyndale's 
object was to spread the knowledge of the Scriptures irrespective of 
the question whether that knowledge made men heretics or confirmed 
their Catholicism. If a knowledge of the Scriptures tended to make 
men heretics, that was the fault of the Church. And as for the 
" mischievous perversion," that surely consisted in enforcing a trans- 
lation which implied a whole world of ideas not contained in the 
original. *' Priest," " do penance," "charity," and '* church" all 
denoted to the men of the sixteenth century ideas which are not to 
be found in the New Testament; and no Greek scholar would dispute 
the fact that Tyndale's expressions were less of a perversion of the 
truth than those they displaced. If Tyndale's translation is a "mis- 
chievous perversion," what is the Revised Version, which for the 
most part adopts Tyndale's phrases ? 




ilxfKRT Ht.C TABELLA Q\OI> 50L\M POTVIT ARS GviLHEl,niTYHD\U-.HV1^5 CUM AvLC \l\ rlljl. ^^^^i 
n OHMAMENTl.qVl P05T FtLIClS rVMORIS ThECM.OOI E PKIMITIAS HK: OtPOSl PAS .XliTVtfl t. !{l KOS 
VoTE.'iTAMENTO NtC NON pENTATtVCHO IN VtRt4 \C\ LAM TRWFEROUaD OPER.V1 UAVAViT AtWLIA 
iAU to V5U S\l\Tirrjt\M.VT INOt lion irilUWTOAl4CLl€AP05-rXXV5ATHWXMAmRk>'^tratM- I 

Copyright Photo., Walker & Cockerell. 
WILLIAM TYNDALE. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform m 

Cromwell encouraged Coverdale to make his trans- 
lation in 1535. It was much inferior to Tyndale's, 
making no pretence to original scholarship, and 
being derived mainly from the Vulgate, and from 
Luther's German translation ; but its sale, which had 
hitherto gone on unauthorised, was licensed by the 
King in 1537, probably to enable the clergy to com- 
ply with the Injunctions of 1536, ordering the pro- 
vision of an English Bible in every church before 
August, 1537. This, however, was not the version 
which Cranmer sent to Cromwell on the 4th of that 
month, declaring that he liked it '* better than any 
other translation heretofore made," and urging that 
it might be licensed for sale " until such time that 
we Bishops shall set forth a better translation, which I 
think will not be till a day after doomsday."^ This 
latter version had been prepared by John Rogers, 
the martyr, who, according to Bradford, '' broke the 
ice valiantly " in Queen Mary's reign. Rogers had 
been entrusted by Tyndale with the manuscript of 
his incomplete translation of the Bible, including the 
whole of the New Testament and the Old as far as 
Jonah ; he incorporated all the former, and the latter 
as far as the second book of Chronicles ; the rest he 
borrowed from Coverdale." The book was originally 
printed at Antwerp, but Grafton, the English printer, 
purchased the sheets and sent a copy to Cranmer, 



^Cranmer, Works, \\., 2>AA- 

'See Diet. Nat. Biog., s. v. Rogers, John (i500?-i555). The 
dedication was signed Thomas Matthew, and the Bible was known 
as " Matthew's Bible," but there is no reason to doubt the identity 
of Rogers and Matthew, 
y 



112 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

who was so pleased with it that he wrote the above 
letter to Cromwell. The result exceeded his ex- 
pectations and nine days later he again wrote to 
Cromwell. ^ 

" My very singular good lord, in my most hearty wise 
I commend me unto your lordship. And whereas I un- 
derstand that your lordship, at my request, hath not only 
exhibited the bible which I sent unto you, to the king's 
majesty, but also hath obtained of his grace that the same 
shall be allowed by his authority to be bought and read 
within this realm; my lord, for this your pain taken in 
this behalf, I give unto you my most hearty thanks, as- 
suring your lordship for the contentation of my mind, 
you have shewed me more pleasure herein than if you 
had given me a thousand pound; and I doubt not but 
that hereby such fruit of good knowledge shall ensue 
that it shall well appear hereafter what high and accept- 
able service you have done unto God and the king; 
which shall so much redound to your honour that, be- 
sides God's reward, you shall obtain perpetual memory 
for the same within this realm. And as for me, you may 
reckon me your bondman for the same. And I dare be 
bold to say, so may ye do my lord of Worcester." ' 

A fortnight later he once more wrote to thank the 
Vicegerent for his services in the matter. 

" For the which act, not only the King's majesty, but 
also you shall have perpetual laud and memory of all 
them that be now, or hereafter shall be God's faithful 
people and the followers of his word. And this deed 



' Cranmer, Works y Parker Soc, ii., 345-346. 
^ I. e.y Latimer. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 113 

you shall hear of at the great day, when all things shall 
be opened and made manifest. For our Saviour Christ 
saith in his Gospel, that whosoever shrinketh from him 
and his word, and is abashed to profess and set it forth 
before men in this world, he will refuse him at that last 
day; and contrary, whosoever constantly doth profess 
him and his word, and studieth to set that forward in this 
world, Christ will declare the same at the last day before 
his Father and all his angels, and take upon him the 
defence of those men." * 

So the " mischievous perversion ** of the heretic 
who less than a year before had been burnt at the 
stake in Antwerp," went forth with Cranmer's bless- 
ing to work its way among the English people, and 
Tyndale's translation, which had before been con- 
demned, received now the sanction of authority, and 
permeated all future versions of the Bible in English. 
The result was not due to the Bishops as a whole, 
but to Cranmer, Cromwell, and Henry VIII., and of 
the three Cranmer, whose motives were unmixed 
with any considerations of worldly policy, deserves 
the greatest credit. This version was, however, too 
advanced for the government, and in 1538-9 an ex- 
purgated edition was printed in Paris, where finer 
type was available than in England. It is known as 
the Great Bible, and also, from the fact that the 
Archbishop wrote a preface for the 1540 and 1541 
editions of it, as "Cranmer's Bible." In 1538 



* iVorks, ii., 346-347. 

' Diet. Nat. Biog., Ivii., 428, where the date of Tyndale's death is 
erroneously given as 6 August instead of 6 October. 



114 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

Cromwell issued a fresh set of Injunctions/ order- 
ing that a copy of this Bible " of the largest vol- 
ume " " should be set up in every church where 
the people might most commodiously resort to 
it and read it, the cost of purchase being defrayed 
half by the parishioners and half by the incumbent.' 
The clergy were " expressly to provoke, stir, and 
exhort every person to read the same," but to 
avoid contention and altercation and to reserve 
disputed points for "men of higher judgment in 
Scripture." In other respects the Injunctions of 
1538 were similar to those of 1536; every incum- 
bent was to recite the Paternoster^ Creed, and Ten 
Commandments in English, that his flock might 
learn them by degrees; he was to require some 
knowledge of the rudiments of the Faith before ad- 
mitting candidates to the sacrament of the Altar, to 
keep a register of births, marriages, and deaths,* and 
to preach at least once a quarter. 

The reasons which led Henry VIII. to permit 



' Printed in Burnet, iv., 341-346. 

^ This expression may be explained by a letter from Grafton, the 
printer of this Bible, to Cromwell (Strype, Cranmer^ ii., 729-732). 
Grafton complains that after he had spent 500/. on this edition other 
men ' ' go about the printing of the same work again in a lesser letter 
to the intent that they may sell their little books better cheap than I 
can sell these great " ; and the stipulation about ' ' the greatest vol- 
ume" was probably designed to protect the original printers from 
this piracy. 

^For these editions see Dixon, ii., 77-79, and authorities there 
cited. 

* Some hint that this invaluable reform was intended as early as 
1536 apparently gave rise to the rumour in Lincolnshire that a tax 
was to be paid on each of these events. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 115 

these instalments of the Reformation were political 
rather than religious. The reading of the Scriptures, 
and the growing disbelief in Purgatory, tended to de- 
stroy what hold the Papacy still had over the minds 
of Englishmen and indirectly to reconcile them to 
Henry's own supremacy ; the way was also paved 
for a better understanding with the Protestant princes 
of Germany whom Henry's political exigencies com- 
pelled him then to conciliate. Before the quarrel 
with the Emperor over Catherine of Aragon, the in- 
tense rivalry between Charles V. and Francis I. made 
England fairly secure; but the policy Henry pur- 
sued with regard to the Church involved the possi- 
bility of a Catholic coalition, and forced him to look 
beyond France for friends. These would naturally 
be found in the German Protestants, who, since 15 30, 
had always been on the verge of war with their 
Catholic Habsburg rulers. In 1535 and 1536, Eng- 
lish agents had been busy in Germany seeking for 
the basis of a political and theological union between 
England and the Lutheran states. Two years later 
the growing friendship of Charles and Francis, pro- 
moted by Paul HI., threatened both English and 
Germans, and another effort was made to bring them 
together. This was Cromwell's favourite scheme, 
and Cranmer from very different motives threw him- 
self eagerly into the work. He had since 1532 kept 
in communication with Lutheran divines, and his 
own theological opinions were nearer the Lutheran 
standpoint than those of any other Bishop in Eng- 
land. In 1536 Bucer dedicated to Cranmer his 
commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, prefix- 



ii6 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

ing a long letter which expressed the hope of Ger- 
many that the Archbishop of Canterbury would 
succeed in his efforts to reform the Church in Eng- 
land.^ When the Protestant deputies, headed by 
Burckhardt, Vice-chancellor of Saxony, arrived in 
London in May, 1538, they found their chief sup- 
port in Cranmer, and the Archbishop probably pre- 
sided at the conferences between them and the 
English Bishops. The Germans demanded, as a 
preliminary to an alliance, the concession of the cup 
to the laity, the abolition of private masses, and 
permission for priests to marry; but the English 
Bishops refused to discuss these demands, saying 
that Henry VIII. was himself composing a reply. 
They wished to treat of the four disputed sacra- 
ments, matrimony, holy orders, confirmation, and 
extreme unction ; but on these points they knew, 
says Cranmer, that the Germans would not agree 
with them, " so that I perceive," he writes to Crom- 
well, ** that the bishops seek only an occasion to 
break the concord." ' They were, however, better 
informed of Henry's mind than the Archbishop. It 
was not Cranmer, but Tunstall,' who was asked to 
assist the King ; and his reply asserted the Catholic 
view of all the disputed questions. The concession 
of the cup to the laity, permission for priests to 
marry, and the abolition of private masses were 

^ Strype, Cranmer^ i., no. 

^Cranmer, Works, ii., 379. 

2 Pocock's Burnet, i. , 408 ; Gardiner seems also to have been con- 
sulted. The King's answer is printed by Pocock, iv., 373. See 
other documents relating to the German mission in Strype's Ecclesu 
astical Memorials^ vol. i., App., Nos. 94-102, 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 117 

all refused, and in October the Protestant envoys 
returned home empty-handed. 

This rigid adherence to Catholic doctrine did not 
imply any slackening in Henry's pursuit of ecclesi- 
astical property, or in his onslaughts on what he 
called superstitious practices; and in 1538-39 there 
was a regular campaign against the remaining mon- 
asteries, the shrines and relics of the saints, and 
wonder-working images. Cranmer himself suggested 
that royal commissioners should inspect the blood 
of S. Thomas in Christ Church, Canterbury, which 
he suspected to be but " a feigned thing, made of 
some red ochre or of such like matter." ^ The 
** blood of Hailes " suffered a similar inquisition, and 
the wonderful Rood of Boxley, an image whose eyes 
opened and shut, was exposed at Maidstone. These, 
we are told, were innocent toys never intended to 
deceive the most credulous folk," and never put to 
such uses as the blood of S. Januarius at Naples. 
But, for innocent toys, their destruction provoked a 
somewhat excessive jubilation among the reformers. 
" Dagon," wrote one,' " is everywhere falling in Eng- 
land. Bel of Babylon has been broken in pieces "; 
and it is doubtful whether the Philistines looked 
upon Dagon and the Assyrians regarded Bel as 
nothing but innocent toys. 

' Works, ii,, 378. 

' Bridgett, Blunders and Forgeries ; Gairdner, Church History, p. 

199- 

^ " Ruit hie passim Azzotinus Dagon ; Bel ille Babylonicus jamdu- 
dum confractus est " (John Hoker of Maidstone to Bullinger in 
Burnet, vi., p. 194-195); cf. Original Letters, Parker Soc, ii., 
6og-6io. 



ii8 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

The surrender of the greater monasteries and the 
destruction of shrines like that of S. Thomas at 
Canterbury yielded Henry more solid gratifications 
than the burning of graven images. Rents from 
thousands of acres of monastic land went to fill the 
gaping void in Henry's exchequer, and cartloads of 
gold and jewels from the shrine of S. Thomas found 
their way to the royal treasure-house. This last out- 
rage on Catholic sentiment precipitated the issue of 
the bull of excommunication which the Pope had 
long held in suspense over Henry's head. But its 
force was spent even before Henry's new treasures, 
and its main effect was to drive the King into the 
arms of Anne of Cleves. The Duke of Cleves was 
not exactly a Lutheran,^ but he had reforming ten- 
dencies, heretical relationships, and claims on parts 
of the Netherlands ; and Cromwell hoped, by marry- 
ing the King to Anne, to cement a political alliance 
between the German princes and England. The 
Emperor was passing through France on apparently 
intimate terms with Francis I. ; and if, in their inter- 
views at Paris, the two Catholic sovereigns agreed to 
obey the behests of their father the Pope, the Eng- 
lish king would be placed in an awkward position. 
And so Henry consented, led on by Holbein's flat- 
tering portrait of Anne of Cleves and by Cromwell's 
extravagant praise of her charms," to place his neck 



'See Merriman, Cromwell, i., 246-247; Cambridge Modern His- 
tory, ii., 236-237. 

* Holbein's portrait now in the Louvre is here reproduced. Crom- 
well told Henry that every one praised her beauty, and that she 
excelled the Duchess of Milan "as the golden sun did the silver 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 119 

once more under the matrimonial yoke ; he hoped 
that his support of Cleves and other German princes 
would give Charles enough to do at home without 
troubling to execute Papal censures in England. 

The event belied both Cromwell's and Cranmer's 
expectations, and brought their ideas of a religious 
reformation into violent conflict with those of their 
masterful sovereign. Cromwell's religious sincerity 
has recently been denied, mainly in order to enhance 
his reputation for unscrupulous political skill/ Prob- 
ably some injustice has thereby been done him ; his 
private friendship with advanced reformers,' and his 
hostility to Catholic prelates seem inconsistent with 
the theory that to him all religions were indifferent ; 
his constant efforts to promote a union with Protest- 
ant princes give more support to his sincerity than 
to his sagacity, and one of the counts against him in 
the Act of Attainder was that he affirmed heretical 
doctrine condemned by the King to be good. About 
Cranmer's attitude there is no doubt ; his statesman- 
ship was not of a very high order, and he was little 
interested in the political aspect of affairs. His 
mind was bent on religious reform, and his theo- 
logical opinions travelled slowly but steadily away 
from the Old in the direction of the New Learning. 



moon." The portrait of the Duchess of Milan, now in the National 
Gallery, explains how chagrined Henry was when he saw Anne. 

^ Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, 1902. 

"^ E. g., with Stephen Vaughan, for whom see Diet. Nat. Biog.^ 
Iviii., 179; the freedom with which Vaughan expressed Protestant 
opinions to Cromwell is incomprehensible unless he was sure of their 
favourable reception. 



I20 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

His zeal for the Reformation and his sanguine tem- 
perament sometimes led him to take a more opti- 
mistic view of its progress than the facts warranted ; 
and in 1537 he rebuked a Kentish magistrate fo: 
asserting that the Ten Articles and the Institution 
of a Christian Man "allowed all the old fashion and 
put all the knaves of the New Learning to silence." 

"If," Cranmer went on, "men will indifferently read 
those late declarations, they shall well perceive that pur- 
gatory, pilgrimages, praying to saints, images, holy bread, 
holy water, holy days,^ merits, works, ceremony, and 
such other be not restored to their late accustomed 
abuses ; but shall evidently perceive that the word of 
God hath gotten the upper hand of them all." * 

This dispute as to the real intention of Anglican 
doctrine was the first of a series which is not yet 
exhausted ; and thus early it appeared that the An- 
glican settlement was to be a compromise between 
two opposing schools of thought, and a compromise 
so ambiguously and so skilfully expressed that each 
party could read into the terms its own individual 
meaning and turn them to its own purposes whenever 
it happened to be predominant. 

Cranmer, however, still held to Catholic doctrine 
in its essential details. He, like the Church, recog- 



• Cranmer himself complained to Cromwell that these superstitious 
holy-days were still observed at court (Strype, Cranmer^ ii., 729). 

* Cranmer, Works, ii., 349-356 ; in Pocock's Burnet, iv., 298-299, 
are printed "some considerations offered to the King by Cranmer, 
to induce him to proceed to a further reformation," but he had to 
wait till the reign of Edward VI. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 121 

nised no divorce, and set his face against the prevail- 
ing lax views on marriage which had been encouraged 
by the frequency of Papal dispensations from the 
canon law. He was often pressed by men of influ- 
ence to grant similar dispensations himself/ but 
always refused. He wrote in disgust to Osiander 
about the immorality at which Lutheran divines 
connived when practised by Lutheran princes, and 
particularly with respect to the bigamous marriage 
which they, adopting a precedent set by a Pope, 
countenanced in the case of Philip of Hesse. 

" What excuse," he asked, " can you possibly offer for 
allowing divorce and remarriage while both the divorced 
parties are alive, or what is still worse, without any 
divorce at all, the marriage of a man to more than one 
wife? By the teaching of the Apostles and of Christ 
himself, marriage is only of one with one, nor can those 
who have been joined contract new unions except after 
the death of one or the other partner." * 

He also still held the canonical doctrine that "such 
marriages as be in lawful age contracted per verba de 
prcBsenti diVQ matrimony before God," and such solemn 
betrothals therefore invalidated any subsequent mar- 
riage with other persons. 

Not less important was his assertion of the Catho- 
lic doctrine of the mass. He had already abandoned 
the Roman dogma of Transubstantiation ; it is not 
affirmed in the Ten Articles of 1536, and in 153^ he 



' Cf. Cranmer, Works, ii., 250-251, 329. 

^Cotton MS., Cleopatra, E. v. f. Ill, printed in Strype, Cran" 
mer^ ii., 752-756, and Cranmer, Works, ii., 404. 



122 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 

wrote to Cromwell that Adam Damlip, the preacher 
of Calais, *' taught but the truth " when he " con- 
futed the opinion of Transubstantiation." But he 
was still a firm believer in the Real Presence ; and 
when a Zwinglian, Joachim of Watt (Vadianus), 
whose acquaintance Cranmer seems to have made in 
1532, sent him a treatise against that doctrine, he 
declared himself much displeased with the argu- 
ment, and said he wished Vadianus had employed 
his study to better purpose.' Nor did he deny 
the necessity of recourse, in the last resort, to ex- 
treme penalties against obstinate disbelievers in the 
real presence. Toleration was in the sixteenth cent- 
ury no more a part of the orthodox Protestant creed 
than it was of Roman Catholicism ; Protestants as 
well as Catholics thought that only one form of truth 
could be true, and that form must be preserved at 
all costs ; and toleration was not conceded until the 
impossibility of forcing men to conform to one or- 
thodox standard had been practically demonstrated. 
But Cranmer's mildness made him reluctant to per- 
secute, and the tale of his victims is short. In 1538 
one Atkinson ' was accused before Cranmer of deny- 
ing the sacrament of the altar ; but he recanted and 
escaped with doing penance. In the same year 
Cranmer was joined with other Bishops in the pro- 
ceedings against John Lambert, but Stokesley and 



^ Cotton MS., Cleopatra, E. v. f. 11 1, printed inStrype, Cranmer, 
i., 94-95, ii., 740-742; Cranmer, Works, ii., 342-344; Original 
Letters (Parker Soc), i., 11. 

^ The German envoys interceded in vain on Atkinson's behalf; cf. 
Cranmer, Works, ii,, 372, and Mason, pp. 106-107. 



1538] Cranmer and Reform 123 

Gardiner were the moving spirits, and Gardiner is 
said to have expressed discontent with the way 
in which Cranmfer at Henry's command replied 
to Lambert's contentions. The King himself pre- 
sided at Lambert's trial, and the sentence was 
read by Cromwell.* With regard to Anabaptists 
he probably felt less scruple ; the recent excesses 
at Munster had shocked the whole of Europe, and 
the Lutheran elector of Saxony wrote to warn 
Henry VHL against members of the sect who were 
flocking to England. The Archbishop was placed 
on a commission to deal with them,' but we have no 
details to show his personal connection with the 
burning of three Anabaptists on St. Andrew's Day, 
1538,' and he was soon absorbed in an attempt to 
stem the tide of reaction which in the following 
year threatened to involve all reformers alike in a 
common fate. 



^ Cranmer was also concerned in the singular case of Friar John 
Forest, who is erroneously said {Diet. Nat. Biog.^ xix., 435) to have 
been imprisoned in 1534 "on a charge of heresy, the basis of which 
was denial of the King's supremacy." The Act of Supremacy had 
not then been passed, and when it was, denial of the King's suprem- 
acy was not heresy but treason. The heresies for which Forest was 
condemned by Cranmer are given in Wriothesley's Chronicle (Cam- 
den Soc), i., 79; his denial of the royal supremacy also involved 
him in a charge of treason, and at his execution he had to suffer the 
penalties for both crimes; he was hanged in chains for treason, and 
for his heresy a fire was lighted under him. It was not in accord 
with the refined cruelty of the age that a man should escape with 
one form of death when he had been condemned on two capital 
charges. 

^Strype, Cranmer, i., 99. 

' Wriothesley, Chronicle^ i., 90. 



CHAPTER V 

CRANMER AND THE CATHOLIC REACTION 

IT is a commonplace with historians to write of the 
last eight years of Henry VIII. 's reign as the 
first of those periods of reaction which have followed 
on each successive stage of England's progress from 
Roman Catholicism. The Lutheran tendencies of 
1529-38 gave way to Catholic influence during the 
remainder of Henry's reign. The rapid Protestant 
advance of Edward VI. was succeeded by the violent 
Romanism of Mary. EHzabeth's reign was marked 
by a steady growth of Puritan feeling; and on its 
heels trod the High Anglican reaction of Laud and 
the other Caroline divines which culminated in the 
attempts of Charles II. and James II. to bring Eng- 
land again within the Roman fold. The revolution 
of 1688 was religious no less than political, and its 
effects upon the Church were the complete predomi- 
nance of the State, the abeyance of Convocation, 
and the supremacy of Low Church and Latitudi- 
narian views. Against this last phase Newman and 
Pusey raised their protest, and the movement which 
they started may not even now have reached its 
flood. 

124 



[1538-1545] Catholic Reaction 125 

This oscillation which has characterised England's 
political and religious history affords ground for a 
convenient generalisation ; but it must not be exag- 
gerated, and too much stress has often been laid 
upon the variations in the ecclesiastical policy pur- 
sued by Henry VIII. The changes described in the 
last chapter did not mean to the King that doctrinal 
revolution which they seemed to imply to the Arch- 
bishop ; and it is probable that Henry went no fur- 
ther in this direction ** than the more enlightened 
popes and cardinals would have done."* He had 
himself, in 1538, drawn up the reply to the emis- 
saries of the Schmalkaldic League, rebutting their 
arguments against communion in one element, cler- 
ical celibacy and private masses, points on which 
even good Catholics were then inclined to make 
concessions ; and he was at the same time edifying 
the orthodox by creeping to the Cross on Good 
Friday, serving the priest at mass, and observing all 
other " laudable ceremonies." In spite of the store 
which he set upon his own private judgment, Prot- 
estant theology never made its way into Henry's 
heart or mind. He had abolished the Pope, but not 
Popery, wrote Bishop Hooper.' It would be truer 
to say that he had taken the place of the Pope in 
the English Church, and substituted a Royal for a 
Roman Catholicism. 

In this religious conservatism Henry VIII. was at 
one with the mass of his people. The accumulated 
force of the habits, customs, and traditions of cent- 

^Stubbs, Lectures on Mediaval and Modern History, 1887, p. 298. 
' Original Letters (Parker Soc), i., 36. 



1 26 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

uries could not be destroyed at once, nor merely by 
preaching; and it is probable that the heart of the 
nation never went out to the Protestant cause until 
it had been sanctified by the blood of the Marian 
martyrs. In 1538-9 the majority of Englishmen 
were Catholic to the core. 

" Who is there almost," complained a reformer in 1539, 
" that will have a Bible but he must be compelled 
thereto. How loath be our priests to teach the com- 
mandments, the articles of the Faith, and the Paternoster 
in English ! Again how unwilling be the people to learn 
it! Yea, they jest at it calling it the New Paternoster 
and the New Learning."* 

And there were parishes in which it was held to be 
more profitable for men's souls that they should 
spend their time praying on their beads than listen- 
ing to the Scriptures. The popular feeling, which 
Henry VHI. had used as a lever and without which 
even he would have been powerless, was animosity 
towards the papal claims and towards the wealth 
and class privileges of the clergy, and not towards 
the doctrine of the Church. Now the papal jtiris- 
diction had been abolished ; the nobility and gentry 
had sated their envy of clerical riches by sharing the 
spoils of the monasteries ; the commercial classes 
had been appeased by the prohibition of the more 
obnoxious forms of clerical trading, and by the limit- 
ation of the Church's power to prosecute for heresy ; 
while the Catholic susceptibilities of the nation had 
been outraged by the irreverent extravagances into 

*X. and P.y vol. xiv., pt. ii., p. 140, 



1545] Catholic Reaction 127 

which the more violent of the Protestant agitators 
had been led by their hatred of papal abuses. There 
was little desire to undo what had been done, and 
the reaction of the next two years only implied a 
cessation in the progress of the revolution ; yet the 
predominant feeling in the nation was that things 
had gone far enough. Bucer believed that Gardiner 
had warned the King that if he proceeded further, 
commotions would occur, and that he would find 
the principal lords in the kingdom against him ' ; 
and Luther complained that although England had 
taken away the Pope's name and property, she was 
strengthening "his doctrine and abominations.'" 

In this condition of public opinion a general elec- 
tion took place in March, 1539. ^^^ course was 
marked by an unusual amount of government inter- 
ference, for the idea that there was no freedom of 
election in Tudor times, and that the House of Com- 
mons was an assembly of royal nominees, is a gross 
exaggeration.^ The bribes or threats employed in 
1539 were not, so far as the evidence enables us to 
judge, directed towards securing the return of royal 
nominees in preference to popular candidates, so 
much as towards promoting the election of one set 
of ministerial candidates rather than another ; that 
is to say, Cromwell was nursing a party to overthrow 



^ Corpus Reformatorum, iii., 775. 

'Z. and P., xiv., ii., 327 ; Luther, Brief e, v. 209; compare Lu-. 
ther's letter to the Elector of Saxony, 23 Oct., 1539, for some cu- 
rious remarks on Henry VIII. and Gardiner. Corpus Re/., iii., 796; 
Z. and P., xiv., ii., 379. 

^SeeE. and A. Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons^ 1903. 

10 



128 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

Gardiner and Norfolk. The result was a striking 
illustration, of the difficulty of packing a Parliament 
against the popular will ; for the House of Com- 
mons, which Cromwell took particular pains to pack, 
passed without a dissentient voice the Act of Attain- 
der against him, and left his rivals secure in royal 
favour. The Protestant policy which he and his ad- 
herents favoured received a sudden check, and the 
Act by which the Parliament of 1539 is best remem- 
bered is the ferocious Statute of Six Articles. 

That this blow to the cause of religious reformation 
was severely felt by Cranmer, goes without saying, 
and his only ground for satisfaction was the know- 
ledge that he had done his best to avert it. He 
was naturally a member of the Lords' committee 
appointed at the King's instance to devise some uni- 
form standard of faith ; but the committee, which rep- 
resented in fairly equal proportion prelates of the Old 
and the New Learning, could come to no agreement ; 
and after ten days' debate the Duke of Norfolk 
brought the question before the House of Lords itself.* 
There it was fully discussed for three days. Cranmer, 
assisted by Bishops Goodrich of Ely, Shaxton of 
Salisbury, Latimer of Worcester, Hilsey of Roches- 
ter, and Barlow of S. Davids, maintained the prin- 
ciples of the Reformation against Archbishop Lee of 
York and Bishops Gardiner of Winchester, Stokesley 
of London, Sampson of Chichester, Tunstall of Dur- 
ham, Repps of Norwich, and Aldrich of Carlisle. 
Opinions among the Bishops were fairly balanced, 
but in the whole House the Reformers were in a 

' lA)rds^ Journals ^ vol. i., p. 109. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 129 

hopeless minority. " We of the temporality," writes 
a peer in describing the scene/ *' have been all of 
one mind," and that mind was one of bitter hostility 
to the New Learning. At length the King himself 
intervened. There was little doubt as to which side 
he would take; he attached small weight to the 
views of his Bishops, whether Catholic or Protestant, 
when they conflicted with those of the laity ; and 
when the weight of all the lay peers and of at least 
half the Bishops was thrown into one scale, when 
even Cromwell and Audley deserted the losing cause, 
it is doubtful whether Henry could have redressed 
the balance even had he agreed with Cranmer and 
been willing to risk his authority in a conflict with 
Catholic feeling. His object was to compel uni- 
formity, and it was less dangerous to require the 
few than the many to submit. So, in the words of 
an admiring peer, the King confounded them all 
with his learning. Other persuasions may have been 
used; Cranmer is said to have refused to be con- 
founded with learning, and to have submitted only 
when ordered by the King to withdraw.' 



^ L. and P., xiv., 1040 ; Burnet, vi., 233 ; Narratives of the Ref- 
ormation^ p. 248. 

^ This assertion apparently rests on the uncorroborated statement 
of Foxe. In one point Cranmer carried the King with him, namely, 
that auricular confession was not enjoined by Scripture. Tunstall 
challenged this view, whereupon Henry wrote to him to say that his 
arguments were futile (Burnet, iv., 400-407). In 1549 Cranmer as- 
serted that the Six Articles would never have passed unless the King 
had come personally into the Parliament house {Works, ii., 168). 
This assertion illustrates the sanguine way in which Cranmer under- 
estimated the forces opposed to him. 



130 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

This submission was in any case only partial, and 
on some of the points in dispute the Archbishop re- 
newed the struggle in Convocation a few days later. 
The proposals were introduced not of course by 
Cranmer, who would never have done such violence 
to his convictions, but by Cromwell, who, as Vice- 
gerent, took precedence of all the Prelates.* The 
assertion of the doctrine of Transubstantiation and 
of the perpetual force of vows of chastity seems not 
to have been challenged again. All the Bishops 
agreed that private masses might "stand with the 
Word of God," and that confession was ** very requi- 
site and necessary " ; but Cranmer, Shaxton, Lati- 
mer, Hilsey, and Barlow reaffirmed that priests 
might lawfully marry, and Cranmer and Barlow con- 
tended that the sacrament should be administered 
under both kinds. In the Lower House of Convoca- 
tion there were only two dissentients from the Six 
Articles, Cranmer*s commissary and marriage-con- 
nection. Dr. Nevinson ' and Dr. John Taylor, the 
future bishop of Lincoln.' The New Learning on 
the episcopal bench was the result of Cromwell's 
and Cranmer's patronage and of Henry VHL's politi- 
cal exigencies ; it had taken little root as yet in the 
church, and the lower clergy were still unmoved by 
its power. 



*For the debates in Convocation, see Wilkins's Concilia, iii., 845, 
and L. and P., xiv., i., 1065. 

''In L. and P., xiv., i., 1065, the name is misprinted " Levyn- 
son. 

^For Taylor, see the present writer in Diet. Nat. Biog., Iv., 
430. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 131 

Rarely indeed has a measure been passed with 
such manifold signs of general approval as the 
"bloody whip with six strings." Henry VIII. *s 
apologists have cast the whole burden of responsi- 
bility upon the Catholic bishops, and clerical histo- 
rians have retorted it upon Henry VIII. It is idle 
to exculpate the one or the other, but both put 
together need not bear all the blame. The Catholic 
bishops would have been powerless to carry the Act, 
and Henry VIII. would not have helped, unless the 
mass of the laity had been on the same side. It is 
an anachronism to represent the people of England 
in the sixteenth century as enamoured of either po- 
litical or religious liberty. Toleration was shocking 
to the minds of the most enlightened ; Sir Thomas 
More may not have committed the cruelties which 
Foxe alleges against him, but in theory at any rate 
he believed in religious persecution. As for the 
masses, they viewed with the utmost indifference 
the burning of martyrs for heresy and the torture 
of priests for treason, and the Act of Six Articles 
passed without a sign of popular protest. 

The Act and the policy it implied involved one or 
two changes on the episcopal bench. Latimer was 
made to give up the See of Worcester and Shaxton 
that of Salisbury.^ Cranmer, Barlow, Goodrich, and 
Hilsey were retained in their bishoprics, and so long 
as that was the royal pleasure they had no option 
but to remain. The modern practice of resigning 



^ Their resignation does not appear to have been voluntary, but to 
have been extorted or at least suggested by the King (Dixon, ii. 
138-139). 



132 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

distasteful and difficult posts would have conisorted 
ill with the rigorous ideal of duty to the State which 
prevailed in the sixteenth century. Cranmer, like 
every one else in that age, admitted the right of the 
State or the Church to overrule individual conscience ; 
and the tyranny of this political principle was not 
brought home to his mind till towards the end of 
his life. The harshness of the theory was, moreover, 
considerably modified in practice under Henry VIII. 
The Archbishop was not forced to make any altera- 
tion of view with regard to the doctrines laid down 
by the Act of Six Articles, nor was he required per- 
sonally to execute its pains and penalties. It is one 
of the few admirable traits of Henry's character that, 
provided his ministers observed the outward form of 
his somewhat arbitrary laws, he did not seek to put 
further burdens on their conscience. We have it on 
Sir Thomas More's own authority,^ that all the time 
that he was Chancellor the King did not employ 
him on business connected with the divorce of Cathe- 
rine of Aragon, because he knew that More disap- 
proved of it ; and in the same way he did not expect 
Cranmer in person to handle the whip with the 
six bloody strings. 

Under these conditions Cranmer remained at his 
post, not without benefit to the cause of the Reforma- 
tion, for it was doubtless due to his and Cromwell's 

1 The King, says More, "only used in prosecuting the matter 
those whose consciences were pwsuaded, while those who thought 
otherwise he used in other business " (More, English Works, i., 424 ; 
Strype, Eccl. Meni.^ I., ii., No. 48 ; Z. and P., 1534, p. 123). More 
also says that Henry's first lesson to him on entering his service was 
that he should look first to God, and after God to him. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 133 

influence that the penalties attached to the Act of 
Six Articles were not put in execution. In October, 
1539, Burckhardt, the Lutheran envoy, wrote to 
Melanchthon, rejoicing that " the papistical faction 
had nowise obtained its hoped-for tyranny " ; * they 
had only secured the statute, he said, and not its 
execution, and he had no doubt but that it would 
shortly be abolished. Gardiner and his allies had 
not yet won the victory ; both he and the reactionary 
Bishop of Chichester were excluded from the Coun- 
cil, and Cromwell was planning that marriage with 
Anne of Cleves, which it was hoped would wed 
Henry VIII. indissolubly with the anti-Catholic 
cause. 

Yet the Catholics were leaving no stone unturned 
to ruin the two protagonists of reform, and the peril 
in which Cranmer stood is illustrated by a curious 
tale related to Foxe by the Archbishop's secretary, 
Morice." After the passing of the Act of Six Arti- 
cles, Henry VIII., who was genuinely interested in 
theological questions, sent to Cranmer and asked him 
to give him in writing a statement of the reasons 
which had led him to oppose the measure. When 
the manuscript was completed Cranmer entrusted it 
to Morice, who happened to be crossing the Thames 
in a wherry, while a bear was being baited in the 
water. The animal broke loose, capsized Morice's 
boat, and the manuscript went floating down the 
river. It was recovered by the keeper of the Princess 



»Z. and p., XIV., ii., p. 149. 

' It is reprinted in the present writer's Tudor Tracts, 1903, pp. 
35 et sqq. 



134 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

Elizabeth's bears, a strenuous Catholic ; he perused 
the book, and, convinced that he could now put a 
spoke in the Archbishop's wheel,* refused to surren- 
der his treasure at any price. The next day he went 
to the Council chamber to deliver what he considered 
damning evidence of Cranmer's heresy to Sir An- 
thony Browne or Bishop Gardiner. But Morice had 
warned Cromwell beforehand, and Cromwell, sum- 
moning the bearward, made him relinquish the 
manuscript and soundly rated him for withholding 
it from its proper owner. 

The Archbishop, however, was not to enjoy the 
advantage of Cromwell's protection much longer. 
Anne of Cleves landed at Dover in December, 1539, 
and on the 29th of that month Cranmer met and 
entertained her at Canterbury. But the lady whose 
beauty had been extolled by Cromwell and flattered 
by Holbein was not to Henry's taste, and he talked 
of renouncing the marriage. He rudely described 
his bride as a " Flanders mare," and sullenly asked 
Cromwell if he must really put his neck under the 
yoke." He affected to doubt whether she really was 

^ By the Act of Six Articles it was heresy to speak against the first 
of them, and treason to speak against the rest ; so that Cranmer, by 
committing his arguments to paper, was rendering himself liable to 
both these penalties. That he did it by the King's command might 
have been no more protection to him than the King's licence was to 
Wolsey when accused of a breach of PrcEmunire ; for Henry had 
already, when it suited his purpose, adumbrated the modern consti- 
tutional doctrine that the royal licence or command was no bar to 
prosecution for a breach of statute law. 

' " My Lord," said Henry to Cromwell, "if it were not to satisfy 
the world and my realm, I would not do that I shall do this day for 
none earthly thing" (Z. and P.^ xv., 824). 



1545] Catholic Reaction 135 

free from her alleged precontract with the son of the 
Duke of Lorraine; but Cranmer argued that the 
engagement had not gone far enough to prevent 
her marriage with Henry. Fear lest her repudiation 
should throw her German friends into the arms of 
Charles V. and Francis I., and leave England with- 
out an ally, induced the King to complete the 
match ; and on 6 January Cranmer married the pair 
at Greenwich.' Closer acquaintance only increased 
Henry's disgust, while soon an incipient breach be- 
tween Charles and Francis showed that the plain 
Anne of Cleves and the distasteful German alliance 
might both be discarded with safety. 

The result was fatal to Cromwell, but it need 
hardly be said that the failure of the Cleves mar- 
riage was not the only cause of the minister's fall. 
The non-execution of the Act of Six Articles and 
the continued immunity which Protestant preachers 
enjoyed exasperated the Catholic party and braced 
it to make one more effort. The changes on the 
episcopal bench in 1539-40 were all in their fa- 
vour. Two reactionaries. Bell and Capon, took the 
places of Latimer and Shaxton at Worcester and 
Salisbury. Stokesley, the truculent Bishop of Lon- 
don, died in September, 1539, but his See was taken 
by the still more strenuous Bonner. Heath, Queen 
Mary's future Chancellor, succeeded the reforming 
Hilsey at Rochester, and another Catholic, Skip, 
stepped into Bonner's shoes at Hereford.' A royal 

' Hall, Chronicle^ p. 836. 

' See Le Neve, Fasti., ed. Hardy, and the D, N. B. for all these 
prelates. 



13^ Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

commissibn was sent to purge Calais of the heresy 
which Cranmer*s commissary had encouraged there, 
and fingers were pointed at Cranmer himself. Nor was 
he more popular in the country than at the Court ; 
when he summoned a popular London preacher, Dr. 
Watts, to account for his Catholic doctrine, ten 
thousand citizens are said to have assembled to 
know the reason why ^ ; and the popular temper of 
the time is illustrated by the fact that persecution 
of heretics was rarely so severe as in 1539-40, when 
the administration of heresy laws had been largely 
confided to secular hands.' 

All this was of evil omen to Cromwell. What- 
ever his private religious views may have been, he 
had become identified with a Protestant policy, and 
the fight between him and his foes was in effect a 
struggle between Reformer and Catholic for control 
of the government. The match was sadly unequal. 
Cromwell had no real friend but Cranmer, and the 
Archbishop's political influence was never very con- 
siderable. Melanchthon and the Lutheran princes 
of Germany might write in Cromwell's praise, but 
Henry paid more heed to the opinions of Francis 
L and Charles V., who both detested the upstart 
Vicegerent. During his mission to Paris in Feb- 
ruary, 1540, Norfolk was warned by the French 
king of the evil impression produced by Cromwell's 
dealings," and Norfolk, like every other English 
noble, hated Cromwell even more than he had hated 



»Z. and p., XIV., ii., p. 280. 
* Dixon, History, ii., 135-136. 
^L, and P., xv., 785. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 137 

Wolsey. In this matter, as in that of the Six Arti- 
cles, the temporal peers were all of one mind. Crom- 
well's power had no root except in the royal favour, 
and Henry was beginning to wonder whether his 
minister's great abilities were worth the friction 
which his retention involved. The struggles in the 
Council were becoming a public danger; now one 
and now the other faction gained the upper hand. 
In April, 1540, Marillac, the French ambassador, 
wrote that Cromwell was tottering to his fall, and 
cynically commiserated Cranmer and the other di- 
vines who, having taught the lords to spoil the 
monasteries, were now threatened with ruin them- 
selves.* Gardiner had been readmitted to the Coun- 
cil, and there was a plan for making the Catholic 
Tunstall Vicegerent.' But the end was not yet. A 
few days later Cromwell was created Earl of Essex, 
two of his satellites' were made secretaries of State, 
his enemy, the Bishop of Chichester, was sent to the 
Tower, and it was rumoured that Cranmer would 
begin a course of sermons at St. Paul's Cross to ob- 
literate the effect of those delivered by Gardiner in 
the previous Lent. Nor would Cromwell stop there. 
There were five bishops, he said, who ought to be 
sent to the Tower like Sampson of Chichester; 
every day, wrote Marillac, new accusations were dis- 
covered, and things were brought to such a pass that 
either Cromwell's or Gardiner's party must succumb. 

* Ribier, Lettres, etc., Paris, 1666, i., 513. 
«Z. and P., XIV., pt. ii., p. 141 : XV., 486. 
^ Thomas Wriothesley, afterwards Earl of Southampton, and (Sir) 
Ralph Sadleir. 



138 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

The Bishops were in a state of " envy and irrecon- 
cilable division, and the people in doubt what to 
believe." * The tension was too great to last ; if some 
solution were not speedily found there would be 
open disruption. 

Then Henry struck as ** remorselessly and sud- 
denly as a beast of prey."' On the loth of June 
Norfolk accused Cromwell of treason ; the whole 
Council joined in the attack, and the Vicegerent 
was stripped of the Garter and sent to the Tower. 
A vast number of crimes were laid at his door. He 
was " the most false and corrupt traitor, deceiver, 
and circumventor against your most royal person 
and the imperial crown of this your realm that hath 
been known, seen, or heard of in all the time of your 
most noble reign." He had done innumerable acts 
without the sovereign's knowledge or licence, and 
had boasted that *' he was sure of " the King. Being 
a " detestable heretic," he had *' secretly set forth 
and dispensed into all shires" a ** great number of 
false, erroneous books," sowing disbelief in the Sac- 
rament of the Altar " and other articles of Christian 
religion most graciously declared by your majesty 
by the authority of Parliament," and had averred 
that it was as lawful for every Christian man to be a 
minister of the said Sacrament as it was for a priest. 
He had released heretics from prison, saved them 
from punishment, and rebuked their accusers. He 
was, in fact, the prime cause of all the heresy and 
schism in the land ; in defence of it he said he would 

* L. and P., xv., 737. 

'Brewer in Z. and P., iv., Pref., p. dcxxi. 







THOMAS CROMWELL, EARL OF ESSEX. 

BY HOLBEIN, PROBABLE DATE ABOUT 1537. PICTURE IS NOW AT TYTTENHANGER PARK, AND IS 
REPROOUCEO BY PERMISSION OF THE COUNTESS OF CALEOON AND MESSRS. GOUPIL. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 139 

fight the King in person, and he hoped that if he 
lived a year or two longer, the King would be 
powerless to resist ; finally he had held " your 
nobles of your realm in great disdain, derision, and 
detestation." * 

All this and much more was set down in an Act 
of Attainder which passed both Houses of Parlia- 
ment without opposition. The only voice raised 
in Cromwell's favour was Cranmer's. He wrote to 
the King, **with timidity," says Lingard, "boldly 
considering the times," says Lord Herbert, on Crom- 
well's behalf.' It was not of much use to address 
Henry in hectoring tones, and whether Cranmer's 
letter was bold or timid, his was now, as it was in 
the case of Anne Boleyn, the only plea which any 
one ventured to urge in favour of mercy. In neither 
instance did it prove of any avail. Cromwell, like 
the Countess of Salisbury in the previous year, was 
not even accorded a form of trial. Parliament con- 
demned him unheard, and on the 20th of July he 
was beheaded on Tower Hill.' 

The last service the King required of him was 
that he should contribute his share of evidence 



^ Burnet, iv., 415-423. 

' Works, Parker Soc, ii., 401. 

' The expression that Cromwell died by the bloody laws which he 
himself made is often misunderstood as meaning that he invented 
the use of Acts of Attainder. That of course was not the case. 
Acts of Attainder were in use before Cromwell's time, but even in 
Henry VIII.'s reign they were usually passed in addition to, and not 
as a substitute for, legal trials. Their motive was to render the na- 
tion an accomplice in all the King's acts of severity, to make out 
that these executions were not merely the deeds of the King or of a 



I40 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

towards the divorce of Anne of Cleves.* That the 
moving cause in that measure was Henry's disgust 
with his wife and dislike of the German alliance ad- 
mits of no doubt ; but neither was a sufficient legal 
justification, and it is necessary to examine the legal 
grounds upon which Cranmer, Convocation, and 
Parliament based the dissolution of the marriage. 
The law which had to be administered was of course 
the Roman canon law which had not been abolished 
with the Roman jurisdiction, but remained in a state 
of suspended animation, capable of being repudiated 
or enforced as circumstances might require. Ac- 
cording to that law, the validity of a sacrament de- 
pends upon the " intention " of the minister ; for 
instance, an Anglican clergyman might administer 
the Eucharist with all due Roman forms, but unless 
he believed in Transubstantiation his administration 
would not be efficacious, because his ** intention" 
would be defective. Marriage is a sacrament which 
the parties minister to themselves, ^ and if there is a 
defective intention on the part of either the marriage 
may be invalid. Henry VHI. therefore set to work 
to prove that his " intention " in marrying Anne of 
Cleves had been defective ; that the matrimony was 
no more than a form which circumstances had com- 
pelled him to adopt. Hence the depositions of 



jury which might be packed, but of the whole nation represented in 
the High Court of Parliament. What Cromwell did was to secure 
condemnation of the Countess of Salisbury by an Act of Attainder 
without the usual trial, and this was the measure meted out to him. 
^ L. and P.^ xv., 823-824; Merriman, Cromwell^ ii., 268-272, 
' See T. Sanchez, l)e Matrimonio, 1739, bks ii, and ivt 



1545] Catholic Reaction 141 

Cromwell and other courtiers parading Henry*s ex- 
pressions of reluctance and disgust on the eve of his 
marriage.' Probably the depositions are substan- 
tially true, but they do not prove that the pressure 
of external danger was so great as to render the 
King's " intention" sufficiently defective to invalid- 
ate his act.* That was a question of state which 
Henry claimed that he alone could decide. 

None the less the divorce was a scandal only ren- 
dered possible by the survival of the grotesque re- 
quirements of the canon law ; and the whole Church 
and people of England must share the opprobrium 
which primarily attaches to the King. It was Gar- 
diner and not Cranmer who ** explained the cause of 
the nullity of the marriage in a lucid speech " before 
Convocation. ' The decree of invalidity was sub- 
scribed by Gardiner, Tunstall, and Bonner, as well 
as by Cranmer ; it was signed by nineteen Bishops 
and by a hundred and thirty-nine other divines,* 
who apparently thought it a venial offence to strain 
the marriage law a point or two if by so doing they 
could get rid of an unpopular Queen and an unde- 
sirable policy. In the sixteenth century, when the 
interests of the State overrode every other con- 
sideration, it would have seemed pedantry to take 
any other course. Happily, so far as Anne of Cleves 
was concerned, there was more of comedy than of 

' Printed in Strype, Eccl. Memorials^ I., ii., 452-463. 

' In comparatively recent years the Pope annulled the marriage of 
the Princess of Monaco, who pleaded that she had no "intention" 
of marrying, but had been forced into it by Napoleon III. 

'Wilkins, Concilia^ iii., 851; Z. and P,, xv., 860. 

*The list is given in Burnet, iv., 431, and in It, and P.^ xv,, 86j, 



142 Thomas Cranmer [1538^ 

tragedy. There is no reason to suppose that her 
separation from Henry was a great blow to her affec- 
tions. She was liberally endowed with estates to 
the then enormous value of four thousand pounds a 
year. She was richer and freer than she had been 
in Cleves; she was probably more happy and cer- 
tainly far more secure than she would have been as 
Henry's wife. She lived on excellent terms with 
him and with his successors, and when she died in 
1558 was buried in Westminster Abbey.' 

While Cranmer must share in the responsibility 
for whatever illegality there may have been in 
Anne's divorce, he is exempt from the blame of 
having sought to bring it to pass. That rests mainly 
upon Gardiner and the Duke of Norfolk. It was 
they who deliberately used the charms of another 
woman to stimulate Henry's repugnance to Anne 
and resolve to put her away. The lady selected 
was Catherine Howard, Norfolk's niece, and it was 
under the Bishop of Winchester's roof that a famil- 
iarity first grew up between her and the King.^ The 
Bishop, writes one of Bullinger's correspondents, 
very often provided feastings and entertainments 
for the pair in his palace at South wark.^ The first 
official intimation of the favour in which she was 
held was the grant to her of the goods of two es- 
caped malefactors in April, 1540, two and a half 
months before Anne's divorce.* Other tokens fol- 



* See Bouterwek, Anna von Cleve, 
^ Diet. Nat. Biog.,'\yi., 304. 
' Original Letters^ Parker Soc, i., 202, 
^L. and P,t xv., 613 [12]. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 143 

lowed, and on the 28th of July/ nineteen days after 
Convocation had pronounced the marriage with 
Anne of Cleves invalid, Henry privately wedded 
Catherine Howard at Oatlands. 

Thus was completed the triumph of the Catholic 
party. It was not so absolute as some desired, for 
Cranmer still remained Primate of England, Audley 
was still Lord-Chancellor, and other statesmen of 
reforming proclivities, such as the future Protector 
Somerset, were growing in influence ; and it is a 
common error to suppose that the ferocious penal- 
ties of the Six Articles were enforced with any per- 
sistence.^ Yet enough had been done to show the 
helplessness of the reformers. Norfolk, who openly 
expressed a partiality for burning heretics, was the 
Queen's uncle and the King's chief minister, while 
Gardiner represented Henry's predominant theo- 
logical mood. Continental Protestants were aghast 
at the repudiation of Anne of Cleves, and the burn- 
ing of men like Barnes, Gerrard, and Jerome; and 



' This is the date given by Dr. Gairdner in Did. Nat. Biog.^ ix., 
304, but in his Church History, 1902, p. 218, he gives 8 August, the 
day on which Catherine was publicly proclaimed Queen. 

^ Canon Dixon (Vol. II., caps, x., xi.) first examined this miscon- 
ception satisfactorily; cf. L. and. P., 1543, pt. i., Pref., p. xlix.; 
pt. ii., Pref., p. xxxiv. ; Original Letters, ii., 614, 627; S. R. Mait- 
land. Essays on the Reformation (ed., 1898). In 1540 Henry ordered 
" that no further persecution should take place for religion, and that 
those in prison should be Set at liberty on finding security for their 
appearance when called for." (Z. and P., xvi., p. 271.) Cranmer 
himself wrote that "within a yearor little more" Henry "was fain 
to temper his said laws, and moderate them in divers points; so that 
the statute of Six Articles continued in force little above the space 
of one year." {Works, ii., 168.) 
II 



144 Thomas Cranmer [.538- 

they likened Henry VIII. to Nero. Englishmen, 
wrote one of Bullinger's correspondents, were when 
subject to the Pope not under such a yoke as they 
now were, when all their property and life itself was 
at the King's disposal ; ** a man may now travel from 
the east of England to the west, and from the north 
to the south without being able to discover a single 
preacher who, out of a pure heart and faith un- 
feigned, is seeking the glory of our God. He has 
taken them all away." * 

Furiously beat the waves of reaction upon the 
chief remaining pillar of the Reformation in Eng- 
land, and many were the attempts to procure Cran- 
mer's downfall. He had foes at Court, foes on the 
episcopal bench, among the squires of Kent, within 
the precincts of his own cathedral and the walls of 
his own house. The prebendaries of Canterbury 
had a special and private grudge against their Arch- 
bishop. For, when the chapter was reconstructed 
after the dissolution of the monasteries, Cranmer 
had urged that "not only the name of a preben- 
dary** should be "exiled his Grace's foundations, 
but also the superfluous conditions of such persons," 
The prebendaries, he said, "spent their time in 
much idleness, and their substance in superfluous 
belly cheer ** ; they were commonly " neither learn- 
ers nor teachers, but good vianders." Corrupt them- 
selves, they seduced younger men from " abstinence. 



^ Original Letters (Parker Soc), i., 204-206. The statement is, 
of course, a slight exaggeration. As will be seen later on, there was 
some preaching in Kent under Cranmer's protection which was 
scarcely in accord with the letter or the spirit of the Six Articles, 



1545] Catholic Reaction 145 

study, and learning," to follow their own appetite 
and example. St. Paul made no mention of preben- 
daries, and it would be well for religion, thought the 
Archbishop, if the four hundred pounds destined to 
support twelve idle prebendaries were devoted to 
the maintenance of twenty divines at ten pounds 
and forty scholars at ten marks apiece.^ This was 
in 1539, before the fall of Cromwell and the triumph 
of reaction ; but the new foundation was not estab- 
lished by royal charter until April, 1542. Cranmer's 
influence was then under a shadow, and his advice 
was not taken either with regard to the extinction or 
selection of prebendaries. He had proposed for 
dean the Protestant preacher Dr. Crome ; but the 
dean selected was that accomplished trimmer, Dr. 
Nicholas Wotton ^ ; and among the twelve chosen 
prebendaries there was only one, the future Bishop 
Ridley, who made any mark as a Reformer. Cran- 
mer does, indeed, appear to have obtained the King's 
permission to appoint three of the New as well as 
three of the Old Learning to be select preachers in 
his cathedral." But the impartiality of this arrange- 
ment did not tend to unity nor improve the Arch- 
bishop's relations with his Catholic chapter ; and the 
diocese was soon rife with recrimination in which 
clergy and laity both took part. The country gen- 
try and the Justices of the Peace were largely C'^ith- 

' Cranmer, Works, ii., 396-397. 

' For Wotton see the present writer in Diet. Nat. Biog,, Ixiii., 

57-^1. 

^ This was one of the sore points with the prebendaries — they con- 
sidered such a step to be the means of setting divisions among them, 
but Cranmer declared that it was the King's will. 



146 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

ol?c, and among them was Sir John Baker, possibly 
the Justice with whom Cranmer had carried on the 
controversy noticed in the preceding chapter*; he 
was also Chancellor of the Exchequer, and appar- 
ently hoped to supplant the Protestant Audley as 
Lord Chancellor of England.* Another Catholic 
magnate of Kent was Sir Thomas Moyle, who rep- 
resented the county in the Parliament of 1542, and 
was chosen Speaker that year. They hoped by 
means of the Statute of Six Articles to rid the coun- 
ty of heretics ; and they as well as the clergy looked 
to Bishop Gardiner as the champion of their cause. 

Returning in September, 1541, from an embassy 
to the Diet of Ratisbon, Gardiner paid a visit to 
Canterbury; and while there he seized the oppor- 
tunity to sound his namesake, William Gardiner, 
one of Cranmer's Catholic prebendaries. The pre- 
bendary told a grievous tale ; he himself was sus- 
pect for his preaching, while men like Edmund 
Scory, the future Bishop of Rochester, and Lancelot 
Ridley, cousin to the future Bishop of London, dis- 
seminated unsound doctrine. One Catholic preben- 
dary and two preachers were already in durance for 
their maintenance of the faith. ' The bishop lis- 



^ See above, p. 120. 

' Baker had also served on the commission appointed to inquire 
into the doings of Cranmer's commissary at Calais. 

3 Some of the Catholic preaching appears to have been extraordi- 
nary. Series, for instance, was charged with saying that as Adam 
was expelled from Paradise for meddling with the tree of knowledge, 
•* so we, for meddling with the Scripture" (Z. and P.^ 1543, ii., p. 
304). A young layman was reported as saying that '* the Bible was 
made by the Devil." (Ibid.^ p. 308.) 



1545] Catholic Reaction i47 

tened sympathetically ; he rebuked Ridley, and en- 
couraged William Gardiner to send him any further 
complaints he might have to make against Cranmer. 
Nor was it long before the bishop heard from his 
confidant again. Series and Shether, two of the di- 
vines imprisoned by Cranmer, refused to plead their 
cause before him, and were sent back to prison. 
Prebendary Gardiner at once bespoke the powerful 
bishop's aid, but an order had already come from 
Court to Series to submit himself to his metropoli- 
tan's authority,' and " wily Winchester," as Foxe 
loved to call the bishop, was too wary to oppose a 
mandate from the King. 

So Series and Shether were left to Cranmer's 
mercy ; and their punishment, combined with Rid- 
ley's and Scory's immunity, was declared by an- 
other of Cranmer's enemies to be the origin of 
the " Prebendaries' Plot " against the Archbishop.* 
There were other causes at work in the minds of 
Series and his friends. Cranmer had threatened to 
hold them as cheap as they held him and to break 
their bond of resistance. His see should be godly 
and quietly governed, and if restraint was put on 
Reformers by the Six Articles, Catholics at least 



*Z. and p., XV., I189. 

2 Ibid., XVIII., ii., p. 361. The full story of this " Plot of the 
Prebendaries" was first rendered accessible by the publication in 
1902 of MS. 128 in Corpus Christi College Library in Cambridge, in 
vol. xviii. of the " Letters and Papers." This MS. contains a num- 
ber of depositions, etc., and even in Dr. Gairdner's abbreviation it 
occupies eighty-eight closely printed pages. Strype had previously 
printed a small portion, but the above account is based entirely on 
the depositions, etc., in Z. and P, 



14^ Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

should not return to the fleshpots which had really 
been left behind. The Justices of the Peace and 
the Catholic clergy thought he passed that limit of 
action, and secretly if not covertly encouraged the 
spread of heresy. He received, it was said, letters 
once a month from Germany, and thought German 
divines good judges of theology ; he had main- 
tained that image and idol were but the Latin and 
Greek for the same evil thing/ His commissary 
at Calais, John Butler, and his commissary in Kent, 
Dr. Nevinson, were both suspected of doubting the 
truth of Transubstantiation. Nevinson had, much to 
the scandal of the orthodox, released a notorious 
heretic in the person of Joan Bocher,^ and although 
he was married, he had been chosen as proctor in 
Convocation for the diocese. His wife was daugh- 
ter of Cranmer's sister, who was accused of having 
two husbands alive. Such were some of the tales 
which found their way into the receptive ears of the 
Bishop of Winchester. 

Series meanwhile was waiting his turn. At last, 
in March, 1543, he persuaded Dr. John Willoughby, 
vicar of Chilham, that it was his duty as royal chap- 
lain to bring these Kentish scandals to the knowledge 
of the King. Willoughby refused to go alone, so 
the pair rode together to London on Friday, March 
the i6th, with a list of charges against the Arch- 
bishop. It seemed a propitious moment, for a 
heresy hunt was in full swing in other parts of the 
kingdom,' and the victims were not confined to men 

»Z. and p., XVIII., ii., p. 329. 
^ She was afterwards burned in 1550. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 149 

of low degree. The Dean of Exeter, two gentlemen 
of the Court, — Thomas Sternhold, the author of the 
metrical version of the Psalms, and Sir Philip Hoby, 
afterwards a statesman of repute, — were sent to 
prison * ; and Dr. John London, Warden of New 
College and Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, had 
made a great impression on the King by detecting 
the poison of heresy among the royal choir at 
Windsor. 

It was to Dr. London that Series and Willoughby 
first resorted. They found that prelatical scoundrel 
puffed up with his Windsor success and eager for 
further triumphs. He told them to fear not, took 
their articles, dressed them up, showed them to some 
of the Privy Council, and then sent Series and Wil- 
loughby on to Bishop Gardiner, who also gave them 
words of encouragement. The next step was to 
clothe the charges in legal form and to obtain the 
signature of sufficient witnesses ; and with this ob- 
ject Dr. London sent Series and Willoughby back 
into Kent. But now a fit of caution seized the pre- 
bendaries ; tale-bearing was well enough, but to set 
one's hand to a slander and perhaps be tried on its 
truth was quite another matter, and Willoughby 
returned empty-handed. Thereupon the zealous 
Dr. London bade him tell Sir Thomas Moyle 
that the Justices of the Peace in Kent would be 
held liable if such evil practices were not brought 
to light, and that they would never have oc- 
curred had the Justices done their duty. Moyle 
then set to work with his colleagues to obtain the 

^ Acis of the Privy Council^ 1542-1547, pp. 97, et. sqq* 



I so Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

requisite subscriptions from the prebendaries and 
parish clergy. When these had been extracted 
the prebendaries themselves were summoned to 
London by Dr. Nicholas Wotton, the Dean of Can- 
terbury, about St. George's Day, the 23rd of April. 
Moyle was now busy with his parliamentary duties,* 
and the management of the affair was left to Sir 
John Baker, who had the advantage of Bishop Gardi- 
ner's advice. Gardiner thought the articles "well 
enough," and the conspirators were confident that a 
general commission would be sent down into Kent 
to deal with the accusations. They now directed 
their efforts towards excluding Cranmer from the 
commission ; it was hoped that Gardiner himself 
would be placed "at its head and that its members 
would include the very prebendaries who were spe- 
cially aggrieved against the Archbishop.^ On the 4th 
of May they had so far succeeded that the Privy 
Council passed a resolution that ** if the King should 
be so content" a commission should be sent into 
Kent to examine " generally all abuses and enormi- 
ties of religion." It was probably something more 
than a coincidence that, on the following day, the 
King's Book of Religion^ which was to confound all 
heretics, was " read in the Council Chamber before 
the nobility of the realm." ' 

It would have gone ill with Cranmer and the cause 
of the Reformation in England had that commission 
with Gardiner at its head, and with Henry VIII.'s 

* He was Speaker in the 1543 Parliament. 

"^L.andP.^yiMlW., ii., 327. 

^ Acts of the Privy Council^ i., 126, 127. 




THOMAS CRANMER 

FROM A STEEL ENGRAVING 



1545] Catholic Reaction 151 

authority at its back, been let loose in Kent. But 
the plotters little knew their King ; Henry had many 
failings, but no monarch had a keener insight into 
men's minds or less liking for being made the tool 
of others. What reception he gave to this demand 
of the Privy Council and to the accusations against 
Cranmer is not known. He kept his counsel and 
his sentiments to himself,* until one day, as he was 
being rowed past Lambeth Palace in his barge, he 
espied the Archbishop standing on the edge of the 
steps. Calling to him, he made Cranmer take a seat 
beside him. " Ha, my chaplain," he said, ** I have 
news for you ; I know now who is the greatest here- 
tic in Kent " ; and he pulled out of his sleeve the 
articles against Cranmer and his preachers signed 
by the Justices and prebendaries. The Archbishop 
demanded the appointment of a commission to 
inquire into their truth. ** Marry," said Henry, 
"so will I do; for I have such affiance and confi- 
dence in your fidelity, that I will commit the exami- 
nation hereof wholly to you and such as you will 
appoint." Cranmer demurred because he, being the 
accused, would not be an indifferent judge. Henry 
would listen to no objection. " It shall be no other- 
wise," he said, " for surely I reckon that you will tell 
me the truth ; yea of yourself, if you have offended. 
And therefore make no more ado, but let a commis- 
sion be made out of you and such other as you shall 

' This was his habit : " Three may keep counsel," he once said, " if 
two be away ; and if I thought that my cap knew my counsel, I 
would cast it into the fire." Never, says Brewer (Z. and /•., iv., 
Pref., p. dcxxi.), " had the King spoken a truer word, or described 
himself more accurately." 



152 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

name, whereby I may understand how this confed- 
eracy came to pass." * 

Here was a bolt from the blue; instead of a 
commission presided over by Gardiner to search out 
Cranmer*s misdeeds, came one presided over by 
Cranmer to inquire into the " confederacy *' of the 
plotters ! Cranmer, however, was but a poor in- 
quisitor ; either unsuspectingly, or with an over-nice 
desire to be impartial, he nominated as his assessors 
his chancellor and his registrar, both of them secret 
" fautors of the papists,** as Morice calls them, and 
the enquiry made no progress, though the commis- 
sion sat for six long weeks. Then through the in- 
tervention of Sir William Butts, the King's favourite 
physician, and Sir Anthony Denny, his favourite 
gentleman of the chamber, a more expert investi- 
gator was appointed in the person of Sir Thomas 
Leigh, who had enjoyed a long practice as a visitor 
of monasteries, and was now summoned from York 
to lay bare the Kentish plot. Under his vigorous 
hands the tale was soon unrolled. It was in vain 
that the prebendaries laid their heads together and 
then separately tried to shift the blame from one 
to another, or that the Justices sought the help 
of the clerk of the peace to divert the scent by draw- 
ing up indictments against the heretics. Disaster 
after disaster attended their cause ; Dr. London was 
convicted of perjury and died miserably in prison ^ ; 
and the Bishop of Winchester's nephew and secre- 
tary, Germain Gardiner, who drew up one copy 
of the articles against Cranmer, was executed on a 
* Narratives^ p, 252. ' Hall, Chron.^ p. 859. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 153 

charge of denying the royal supremacy. Cranmer*s 
rebellious clergy were more fortunate. A few weeks* 
or months* confinement was the only penalty they 
paid ; not one appears to have suffered the loss of 
any preferment, or to have been exempted from the 
general pardon passed as an Act of Parliament in 
the following spring. The principal effect of this 
plot and of the zeal of the heresy-hunters was cer- 
tainly undesigned ; for Parliament in 1 544 sought to 
prevent malicious accusations of heresy by providing 
that no one should be arraigned except on the oath 
of twelve accusers, nor for any offence committed 
more than a year before, and that no one should be 
arrested for heresy except on the warrant of two of 
the Privy Council. 

Possibly the ease with which the Archbishop's 
enemies escaped encouraged further delation. At 
any rate, in the 1 544 or 1 545 session of Parliament, Sir 
John Gostwick complained in the House of Com- 
mons of Cranmer's preaching. Gostwick was proba- 
bly the mouthpiece of the Archbishop's old enemies, 
the Justices of Kent, for he himself represented 
Bedfordshire and had not heard the sermons of 
which he complained. Henry was moved to wrath. 
" Tell that varlet Gostwick," he said, "that if he do 
not acknowledge his fault unto my Lord of Canter- 
bury ... I will sure make him a poor Gostwick, 
and otherwise punish him to the example of others " 
— a threat the force of which Gostwick could well 
appreciate.' He hastened to Lambeth and was so 

* Gostwick had profited enormously by the dissolution of the mon- 
asteries and by holding the treasurership of First-fruits and Tenths. 



154 Thomas Cranmer [1538^ 

penitent that Cranmer not only forgave him, but in- 
terceded with the King on his behalf. Henry was 
not so easily mollified, and it was with difficulty 
that he could be persuaded to grant his pardon on 
Gostwick*s promise never to meddle with Cranmer 
again.* 

The third attempt to ruin the Archbishop was the 
most nearly successful, and is the best known be- 
cause of the dramatisation of the story in Shake- 
speare's Henry VI 11,^ On this occasion the Council 
went so far as to demand Cranmer's committal to 
the Tower. The King demurred, but was persuaded 
to consent by the argument that no one would dare 
to witness against so powerful a personage unless he 
were in the Tower. Even so, Henry's consent was 
feigned or he soon repented of giving it ; he sent for 
Cranmer about eleven o'clock of the same night, 
and informed him of what had occurred. Cranmer 
thanked the King for his warning, and expressed 



* Dr. Gairdner suggests that this attempt was the occasion of 
Henry VIII. 's remarkable sermon addressed to the Houses of Par- 
liament at the close of the session in 1545, the substance of which is 
printed in Hall's Chronicle (ed. 1809, pp. 864-868), in Lord Her- 
bert's Z«/^ and Reign of Henry VIII. (1672, pp. 598-601), and in 
the present writer's Henry Vlll.y pp. 282-4. 

'Act v., sc. i., ii. This is not the place to discuss the question 
whether Shakespeare or another wrote these scenes ; the dramatist, 
whoever he was, took his story from Foxe, who had it from Cran- 
mer's secretary, Morice. Morice's original narrative is printed in 
Narratives of the Reformation (Camden Soc, 1859, PP- 254-258), 
and although Foxe took some liberties with Morice's MS. most of 
the details and many of the phrases in Shakespeare are incorporated 
from Morice. The date given in the play for the incident, viz., 



,545] Catholic Reaction 155 

himself only too glad of an opportunity to answer 
whatever might be l^id to his charge ; he was very 
well content, he said, to go to the Tower, " so that 
he might be indifferently heard." 

" O Lord God," exclaimed Henry, " what fond sim 
plicity have you so to permit yourself to be imprisoned 
that every enemy of yours may take vantage against you. 
Do you not think that if they have you once in prison, 
three or four false knaves will soon be procured to wit- 
ness against you and to condemn you, which else now 
being at your liberty dare not once open their lips or ap- 
pear before your face. No, not so, my Lord, I have 
better regard unto you than to permit your enemies so 
to overthrow you. And therefore I will that you to- 
morrow come to the Council, who no doubt will send for 
you; and when they break this matter unto you, require 
them that being one of them you may have thus much 
favour as they would have themselves, that is, to have 
your accusers brought before you ; and if they stand 
with you without any regard of your allegations, and will 
in no condition condescend unto your requests, but will 
heeds commit you to the Tower, then appeal you from 
them to our person, and give to them this ring by which 
they shall well understand that I have taken your cause 
into my hands from them, which ring they well know that 
I use it to no other purpose but to call matters from the 



1533, about the time of Queen Elizabeth's birth, is of course an in- 
stance of poetic licence. It may have occurred in 1545, but certainly 
not later, as Dr. Butts, who plays an important part in it, died in 
that year, while Morice's language implied that it was the last 
attempt against Cranmer made in Henry VIII. 's reign. It would 
seem to be a more likely occasion for Henry's allocution to Parlia. 
ment in 1545 than Gostwick's puny attack. 



156 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

Council into mine own hands to be ordered and de- 
termined." ^ 

By eight o'clock the next morning Cranmer was 
summoned to the Council, and by a refinement of 
malice he was made to wait outside the door for 
nearly half an hour surrounded by serving men and 
lackeys. His faithful secretary, who tells the story, 
sped at once to Dr. Butts, who first considerately 
came to keep the Archbishop company and then 
informed the King. "What," exclaimed Henry, 
"standeth he without the Council chamber door? 
Have they served me so ? It is well enough ; I shall 
talk with them by and by." Presently Cranmer was 
called into the Council room and charged with in- 
fecting the whole realm with heresy. No plea to be 
confronted with his accusers could avail ; he must go 
at once to the Tower. Then the Archbishop pro- 
duced Henry's ring. Russell swore his customary 
oath : " Did I not tell you, my Lords," he said, " what 
would come of this matter ? I knew right well that 
the King would never permit my Lord of Canter- 
bury to have such a blemish as to be imprisoned, 
unless it were for high treason " ; and they went 
with fear and trembling into Henry's presence. 
"Ah, my Lords," broke out the King, "I had 
thought that I had a discreet and wise Council, but 
now I perceive that I am deceived. How have ye 
handled here my Lord of Canterbury ? What ! make 

^ Other instances of Henry's using a ring for this purpose are 
quoted in Nichols's notes to the Narratives of the Reformation^ pp. 
56, 256 ; and the reader will remember the story of Queen Elizabeth 
and the Earl of Essex. 



1545] Catholic Reaction 157 

ye of him a slave, shutting him out of the Council 
chamber amongst serving men? Would ye be so 
handled yourselves ? I would you would well under- 
stand that I account my Lord of Canterbury as faith- 
ful a man towards me as ever was prelate in this realm, 
and one to whom I am many ways beholding by the 
faith I owe unto God ; and therefore whoso loveth 
me will regard him hereafter." Norfolk tried to 
make excuses and pretended that their design was 
only to send the Archbishop to the Tower in order 
that he might have the greater glory of a triumphant 
acquittal. " Well," said Henry, " I pray you use 
not my friends so. I perceive well enough how the 
world goeth among you. There remaineth malice 
among you one to another ; let it be avoided out of 
hand, I would advise you." ^ And from that time, 
continues Morice, no man ever more durst spurn 
against the Archbishop during King Henry's life. 
The confidence which Henry VHI. reposed in 
Cranmer was, indeed, the envy of the Archbishop's 
friends and wormwood to his enemies. " You were," 
said Cromwell to him, " born in a happy hour ; for 
do and say what you will, the King will always take 
it well at your hand. And I must needs confess 
that in some things I have complained of you unto 
His Majesty, but all in vain, for he will never give 
credit against you, whatsoever is laid to your charge ; 
but let me or any other of the Council be complained 
of, His Grace will most seriously chide and fall out 
with us. And therefore you are most happy if you 
can keep you in this estate." ^ Henry indeed could not 

* Narratives y pp. 254-258. ' Ibid.^ pp. 258-259. 



158 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 

easily afford to dispense with Cranmer; there was 
no prelate in England who could have filled his 
place. Gardiner was able enough in worldly mat- 
ters, and he had hitherto proved sufficiently pliant, 
but he had not the advantage of Cranmer's learning 
nor his simplicity of character. " My Lord of Can- 
terbury," said Henry to Gardiner, when they were 
seeking to combat Cranmer's denial that the *' canons 
of the Apostles " were of as good authority as the 
four evangelists, " is too old a truant for us twain " * ; 
and even those who most dislike Cranmer's later 
theology are thankful that the task of moulding the 
English liturgy fell into his hands and not into those 
of the Bishop of Winchester. Tunstall was perhaps 
the best alternative, being as mild, respectable, and 
tolerant as Cranmer himself ^ ; but Tunstall again 
had spent in the study of law and pursuit of diplo- 
macy the time which Cranmer devoted to scriptural 
and ecclesiastical learning, and there was nothing to 
be gained from a personal point of view by his sub- 
stitution for Cranmer as Primate. Moreover, any 
unnecessary change was to be avoided ; the King 
was too wise and too conservative to provoke wanton 



* Narratives, p. 250. 

'For Tunstall, see the present writer in Did. Nat, Biog., Ivii., 
310-314. In 1539 Gardiner was said by a Reformer to be the " wit- 
tiest, the boldest, and the best learned of his faculty," but to be of 
*' very corrupt judgment," though Tunstall had done more harm to 
the cause of the Reformation by his "stillness, soberness, and sub- 
tlety" ; he added the pregnant remark that "by such bishops as these 
came nothing but translatio imperii, so that they make of the King 
as it were a pope" (Z. and /*., 1539, ii., p. 141.) 



1545] Catholic Reaction 159 

disorder when the essence of his contention was that 
his measures only effected the restoration of an 
older, better, and more legitimate form of church 
government ; and the only unnatural changes in the 
personnel of the episcopate during his reign were 
the execution of Fisher for treason and the compul- 
sory retirement of Shaxton and Latimer for heresy. 
Cranmer's humility no doubt gratified the King's 
autocratic temper, but his simplicity and single- 
hearted devotion to the anti-papal cause enhanced 
his estimation in Henry's eyes. There was in him 
no touch of the self-seeking ambition which ruined 
Wolsey and Cromwell. Cranmer almost alone of 
Henry's advisers refused to join in the general 
scramble for wealth,* and the King was often im- 
pressed by virtues he did not himself possess. So, 
too, the Archbishop's obvious defencelessness against 
the wiles of his enemies was a recommendation to the 
protection of a monarch who loved to put down 
the mighty from their seats and to exalt the humble 
and meek. What would they do, he once asked, 
with Cranmer when he was gone ? ' And his warn- 
ing to the Archbishop that he would in the end be 
sorely tested if he " stood to his tackling," was em- 
phasised by his substitution of three pelicans for 



' "We," wrote Sir William Petre, one of Henry's secretaries of 
State, "which talk much of Christ and his Holy Word, have I fear 
me used a much contrary way ; for we leave fishing for men, and 
fish again in the tempestuous seas of this world for gain and wicked 
mammon." (Quoted in P. F. Tytler, Edward VI. and Mary ^ \ 

427.) 

' Narratives of the Reformation^ j>. 25<^. 

X2 



i6o Thomas Cranmer [i 538-1545] 

three cranes on Cranmer's coat-of-arms ; for he would 
have, like the pelican, ** to shed his blood for his young 
ones brought up in the faith of Christ." * 



• '• The ' pelican in her piety ' had been long a recognised emblem 
of the Passion of Christ, and there is an old distich : 

* Ut pelicanus fit matris sanguine sanus 
Sic sumus sanati nos omnes sanguine Nati.' 

It afterwards became a favourite device in religious heraldry, and 
Cranmer was not the first prelate who adopted it. A pelican on an 
azure field was borne by Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester, who 
died in 1528 . . . and these arms are still used by Corpus Christi 
College of his foundation at Oxford. Similar arms were assumed by 
several of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops, either (says Strype) to imitate 
Cranmer or to signify their readiness to shed their blood for the 
Gospel " (Chester Waters, Memoirs of Cranmer^ pp. 382-383). 



CHAPTER VI 
cranmer's projects during henry's last 

YEARS 

EAGER as his enemies were to undermine Cran- 
mer's influence with the King, they yet were 
often glad to employ it as a screen for themselves, 
and to thrust upon the Archbishop unpleasant and 
dangerous duties ; and during the last years of 
Henry's reign, though Cranmer's chief labours were 
spent in quiet preparation for religious reform, he 
was more than once required to take an important 
part in secular matters. He had already been made 
the Council's mouthpiece on one perilous occa- 
sion. In 1533 Henry was boiling over with fury at 
the Princess Mary's stubborn refusal to relinquish 
her title and recognise the validity of her mother's 
divorce. It was, according to Chapuys, the imperial 
Ambassador, Anne Boleyn who had worked him into 
this state of feeling, and so exasperated was he that 
he meditated sending the Princess to the Tower as 
a disobedient subject. The Council were fully alive 
to the consequences which would probably follow 
such a proceeding, but they shrank from pointing 
them out to Henry, fearing that wrath of the King 

J.61 



i62 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

which Wolsey and Warham and Norfolk declared to 
be death. So the burden was laid upon Cranmer *s 
shoulders, and the "timorous" Archbishop inter- 
ceded for Mary as he did for Anne Boleyn and for 
Cromwell when no other durst open his mouth. In 
this case his pleadings succeeded, though Henry is 
said to have prophesied that his intervention would 
" be to his utter confusion at length " — a remarkable 
prediction if it is true.* 

A still more trying ordeal was imposed upon 
Cranmer in 1541. Henry VIII. was satisfied from 
every point of view with his marriage to Catherine 
Howard ; and on All Slaints' Day, 1541, he ordered 
his chaplain, the Bishop of Lincoln, to make prayer 
and give thanks with him to God for the good life 
he was living and hoped to live with his present 
Queen.' Twenty-four hours later Cranmer had to 
communicate to him the news of Catherine Howard's 
infidelity. Details of her misconduct before mar- 
riage had come to the Archbishop's ears during 
Henry's absence in the north of England ; investi- 
gation left no doubt as to the correctness of the 
charges, and it became some one's duty to inform 
the King. Councillors' hearts quailed at the thought, 
and with one accord they importuned Cranmer to 
undertake the task. The King was deeply cha- 



* Morice in Narratives of the Reformation^ p. 259 ; the phrase is 
in a later hand than Morice's and may be a prophecy after the 
event. Morice appears to have written " one of them should see 
cause to repent." 

'Z. and P., 1 540-1541, No. 1334; Nicolas, Proceedings of the Privy 
Council ^ vii., 352, 




Copyright Photo., Walker & Cockerell. 
QUEEN CATHERINE HOWARD. 

PAINTED IN THE SCHOOL OF HOLBEIN. 



1547] Cranmer's Projects 163 

grined ; men whose own morality is not above re- 
proach are often the more scrupulous about the 
prenuptial morals of their wives, and Henry was so 
overwhelmed by the early indiscretions of his Queen 
that he shed tears and was thought to have gone mad.* 
Cranmer was sent to obtain her confession and to 
hold out hopes of mercy, and it is possible that 
Catherine would have escaped with a divorce, had 
not proofs of her misconduct after marriage come to 
light during a later stage of the enquiry. This of- 
fence was high treason, and as such it passed out of 
Cranmer's jurisdiction. Parliament intervened, and 
having secured the King's permission, passed an Act 
of Attainder to which the royal assent was given by 
royal commission, professedly to spare the royal 
feelings.2 Thus ends the tale of Cranmer's share in 
the matrimonial troubles of Henry VHI., for Cath- 
erine Parr, his last wife, albeit a lady inclined to 
religious reform, was married to the King by Bishop 
Gardiner.'' 

The selection of the Bishop of Winchester to offi- 
ciate at this ceremony, which took place at Hampton 
Court on 12 July, 1543, may be connected with the 
circumstances that Cranmer was still nominally suf- 
fering under the imputation of Jieresy brought against 



*Z. and p., 1540-1541, Nos. 1403, 1426. 

' This, is believed to have been the origin of the practice since 
grown common of giving the royal assent to Acts of Parliament by 
commission. 

^ Catherine Parr, it may be remembered, had already had two 
husbands, and was to have a fourth after Henry's death, so that she 
was almost as much married as the King himself. 



164 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

him by his prebendaries, and that Henry had been 
annoyed by the discovery of heresy at Windsor. But 
the cross-currents in Henry's Court were so numerous 
and so fluctuating that it is impossible to construct 
the history of the time on the theory that any re- 
ligious or political principle was all-powerful at any 
particular moment. Individual ministers a,pparently 
enjoy the confidence of the Crown as fully when 
they are hostile as when they are friendly to the 
main drift of national policy; and, indeed, before 
the Cabinet system had been evolved, there was no 
objection to the government's being administered by 
men of divergent principles. Hence Cranmer seems 
to have been as actively employed in the Council 
during the period succeeding Cromwell's fall as he 
had been before. From 1540 to the end of the 
reign, except during his laborious investigation into 
the Plot of the Prebendaries, he was a regular at- 
tendant at its meetings. In the autumn of 1541, 
when the King was absent in the north, the Arch- 
bishop's name heads the list of those councillors 
who were responsible for the direction of affairs in 
London; and again in 1544, when Henry crossed 
the Channel to wage war in person against the King 
of France, Cranmer is first in the Council of Regency 
appointed to advise the Queen. In July, 1541, he 
was selected to harangue the French ambassador on 
the advantages of peace between France and Eng- 
land and on the evil effect which would be produced 
if the French continued some offensive fortifica- 
tions they had begun near Calais ; and in the follow- 
ing month he remonstrated with Chapuys about the 



1547] Cranmer's Projects 165 

treatment of English commerce in the Netherlands.' 
In November, 1542, after the battle of Solway Moss, 
the Earl of Cassilis, the chief of the Scottish prison- 
ers, was entrusted to the Archbishop's care at Lam- 
beth, and his intercourse with Cranmer is said to 
have induced the Earl to adopt the New Learning 
and thus to have contributed to the furtherance of 
the Reformation in Scotland. 

To the cause of religious reform Cranmer was, in 
spite of its official unpopularity, still devoting in 
private his vast industry and extensive learning. 
Probably he did not expect much from the prevalent 
mood of the King and the people, but he believed 
that the time for a further reformation would come ; 
he knew that the opportunity, when it came, could 
not be effectively used without previous prepara- 
tion, and during the latter years of Henry VIIL 
he was quietly maturing plans which came to 
fruit in the reign of Edward VL He drew up 
at least two schemes of church service which were 
afterwards used as the basis of the First Book 
of Common Prayer,' and also drafted a scheme of 
canon law, for the reform of which three Acts 
of Parliament were passed in 1534, 1536, and 1544'. 
But the commission, the appointment of which was 
then sanctioned, was not actually selected until late 



* Z. and p., 1540-41, Nos. loii, 1085. 

' Wood, Scottish Peerage, i., 330 ; Le Bas, Life of Cranmer. 

' During the Convocation of 1544 there was "a secret discussion 
about asking the King to establish ecclesiastical laws" (Wilkins, 
Concilia, iii., 868). Cranmer's collection may be connected with 
this discussion, but nothing came of the proposal. 



1 66 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

in the reign of Edward VI.* ; and the consideration 
of Cranmer's other drafts may be conveniently post- 
poned until their connexion with the First Book of 
Common Prayer has to be discussed. ^ The same 
may be said of Cranmer's labours on the Book of 
Homilies, He had apparently begun to work on 
them as early as 1539,' but it was not till 1543 that 
the Homilies were submitted to Convocation.* Even 
then they were not published nor apparently ap- 
proved, and their issue was one of Cranmer's earliest 
measures in the reign of Edward VI. 

In some minor questions, however, Cranmer was 
able to get his way even in the reign of Henry VIII. 
The modification of the Act of Six Articles already 
mentioned was doubtless furthered by him. In 
July, 1 541, he drew up, with Henry's acquiescence, 
a proclamation abrogating a few superfluous saints' 
days and abolishing certain ** childish supersti- 
tions." ^ In the following October he was author- 
ised to enjoin the removal of shrines and relics which 
were superstitiously revered, and to prohibit the of- 
fering of lights and candles '* except to the Blessed 
Sacrament."** In 1542 he defeated Gardiner's at- 
tack upon the English Bible. Convocation had 
declared that the version known as "Cranmer's 
Bible" could not be retained without scandal unless 
it were revised and corrected. The task of revision 
was entrusted to a committee headed by Tunstall 
and Gardiner, and Gardiner produced a long list of 

^ See below, pp. 213, 214. ■* Ibid.^ 1543, i-» i^?* 

^ See below, pp.213, 214. ^ Ibid., 1540-41, Nos. 978, 1022. 1027. 

3 L. and P., XIV., i., 466. « Ibid., No. 1262. 



1547] Cranmer*s Projects 167 

words which should remain in Latin or else be 
translated in a more Catholic sense. But three 
weeks later Cranmer came down with a message 
from the King to the effect that the revision of 
the Bible should be entrusted to the universities 
of Oxford and Cambridge. The bishops all pro- 
tested, except Cranmer and his brethren of Ely and 
St. Davids, that Convocation was better fitted for 
the task than the universities, i. e.^ that the voice 
of authority should prevail over that of learning * ; 
but the protest was unavailing, and as the universi- 
ties were not after all consulted, Cranmer's Bible 
escaped its Catholic revision. 

The Archbishop is also believed to have prevented 
an official recognition of the numerous existing forms 
of church service. A committee of divines had for 
some time been engaged in drawing up a '* Rationale 
of Rites and Ceremonies," in which they contented 
themselves with commending without amending 
those in use.^ Gardiner's hand has been traced in 
this production, which, according to Foxe, was " con- 
futed " by Cranmer. At any rate, it never received 
the sanction of Convocation, and in February, 1543, 
Cranmer announced it as the King's wish that mass- 
books, antiphoners, and portuises should be newly 
examined and purged of all mention of the Bishop of 
Rome and of " all apocryphas, feigned legends, super- 
stitions, orations, collects, versicles, and responses"; 
and that the names of all saints not mentioned in 
** the Scriptures or in the authentical Doctors should 

' Z. and p., 1542, No. 176. 
'Collier, ii., 191 ; Dixon, ii., 313, n. 



1 68 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

be abolished and put out of the same books and cal- 
endars." * 

Less successful were Cranmer*s efforts to stamp 
his individual impress upon the manual of faith, 
which, published under the title, A Necessary Doc- 
trine and Erudition for any Christian Man^ was 
known as the " King's Book " to distinguish it from 
the "Bishops* Book** of 1537,* and epitomised the 
prevailing theology of the latter years of Henry's 
reign. The " Bishops' Book '* had been too advanced 
for many Bishops and possibly for the King himself ; 
and since Cromwell's fall the episcopal bench had 
been labouring at its revision. Questions as to the 
origin, nature, and number of the sacraments, as to 
the origin and nature of the episcopal authority, of 
Holy Orders, and of the power of princes in the 
Church, were submitted to the Bishops and other 
divines ; and various replies have survived. Henry 
himself took part in the discussion, and we have a 
document containing the King's own annotations on 
some of the conclusions put before him. There is 
also a copy of the " Bishops* Book ** with numerous 
emendations in Henry's hand and answers to them 
in the Archbishop's.^ These are interesting as a 



^ Wilkins, Concilia, iii., 863. The Bishops of Ely and Salisbury 
were entrusted with this task with the help of six members of the 
Lower House of Convocation, but the Lower House did not co- 
operate, and the purgation apparently was not carried out, or was 
limited to the omission of the word " Pope," to the suppression of 
the office and name of Thomas Beket, and to the correction of typo- 
graphical errors (Gasquet and Bishop, Edward VI. and the Book of 
Common Prayer, p. 4, n.). 

*See above, pp. 108-109. ^Cranmer, Works, ii., 83. 



X547] Cranmer*s Projects 169 

conclusive refutation of the idea that Cranmer never 
ventured to express different opinions from those of 
his sovereign ; for in this document it is seldom 
that the Archbishop agrees with the King ; some of 
the royal phrases, says Cranmer, " obscure the mean- 
ing" of the text; others are "superfluous" and 
" were better out " ; some, again, " diminish the good- 
ness of God," and others are " not grammar." The 
" preter tense," he reminds the King, " may not 
conveniently be joined with the present." " I can- 
not perceive," he bluntly says of two other sugges- 
tions, " any manner of consideration why those words 
should be put in that place." And so on throughout 
the book Cranmer's comments proclaim the freedom 
with which he could speak his mind to the King, 
and remind us of the testimony of Erasmus to the 
urbanity and unruffled temper with which Henry 
was in the habit of conducting his theological dis- 
putations. 

In the result, however, it is fairly clear that, while 
Cranmer's literary taste left its mark upon the form 
of the " King's Book," the doctrine it inculcated re- 
presented the views of the Catholic rather than those 
of the Reforming party; and the book may perhaps be 
regarded as a fair epitome of the Anglo-Catholic 
faith which most Englishmen of the year 1 543 held, 
and to which, with one important exception, not a few 
Anglicans would wish to return to-day. That excep- 
tion is due to the decay of monarchy and the develop- 
ment of democratic views. In 1543 there was no 
question of an independent Church ; the only alter- 
natives were a Church dominated by the King and a 



170 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

Church dominated by the Pope; and Gardiner and 
Cranmer vied with each other in zeal for the royal 
supremacy. All were agreed that the selection of 
bishops belonged to the prince/ and that no ecclesi- 
astic could act without the prince's permission ; the 
election by chapters was tacitly regarded as an empty 
form. Cranmer and Barlow went farther than this ; 
they considered that this royal appointment con- 
ferred potestas ordinis as well as potestas jurisdic- 
tionis, that consecration was not required, and that 
the King was summus episcopus, from whom the clergy 
derived the whole of their powers ; and as a logical 
corollary of this position they denied that Holy 
Orders were a sacrament.^ This was Lutheranism 
pure and simple ; it met with the decided opposition 
of the great majority of the English divines, and was 
consequently not adopted in the " King's Book." 



* Canon Dixon thinks it significant that Gardiner either did not re- 
ceive, or returned no answers to, the questions circulated on these 
points, but his silence is probably due to his absence in Germany in 

1541. 

^ See Cranmer's and Barlow's answers in Burnet, iv., 443 et seq.^ 
and compare Dixon, ii., 303-307. "This," says Cranmer, "is 
mine opinion and sentence at this present ; which nevertheless I do 
not temerariously define, but refer the judgement thereof wholly unto 
your Majesty." His convictions were not settled on the point, and 
in 1548 he reverted to the more orthodox view of ordination, deriv- 
ing the * ' ministration of God's word " from the imposition of hands 
by the Apostles and their successors. The change was probably due 
{a) to the fact that the exercise of royal power by the Council in 
Edward VI. 's minority made it more difficult to believe in the royal 
power to confer spiritual privileges, and {b) Cranmer was then turn- 
ing from the Lutherans to the Zwinglians, who had no such regard 
as the Lutherans had for the prince as summus episcopus. 



1547] Cranmer's Projects 171 

This " third English Confession," as Canon Dixon 
calls It, consisted of an exposition of the Creed, of 
the Ten Commandments', of the Sacraments, and of 
the Lord's Prayer and other select passages from 
Scripture. It was much more detailed and explicit 
than the ** Bishops' Book " in its assertions about the 
sacraments. It uses several of the Latin words 
which Gardiner recommended in preference to the 
English translations adopted in Cranmer's Bible. It 
is definitely committed to the doctrine of Transub- 
stantiation, to the Invocation of Saints, and, of 
course, to the celibacy of the clergy.* It was care- 
fully revised by Convocation during the spring of 
1543, and the King himself wrote a Preface reproving 
diversities of opinion and the improper use of the 
Scriptures in much the same terms as he afterwards 
used in his farewell to Parliament in 1545. On 6 
May, 1543, it was read to the Peers in the Council 
chamber,^ and it was issued from the press on the 
19th. Parliamentary approval was expressed in the 
first Act passed that year, and great expectations 

^ Canon Mason (pp. 11 5-1 17) seeks to show that the '* King's Book " 
was essentially Cranmer's work and ** a reforming work." Of course 
it indicated no idea of repairing the breach with Rome, restoring the 
monasteries or the worship of saints like Thomas Beket, but the con- 
tention that it marks an advance upon the " Bishops' Book " of 1537 
rests upon the assumption that the latter implied the acceptance of 
all the old theology that was not expressly repudiated, and that its 
omissions have no particular significance. But it was of these large 
omissions that the Catholic party complained, and the filling them up 
in 1543 in a Catholic sense left no room for such interpretations as 
Cranmer had put upon the "Bishops' Book" in his letters to the 
Justice of Kent (see above, p. 120). 

^Acts r, C, 1542-47, p. 127, 



172 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

were entertained of it. The King, said his Council, 
had " set forth a true and perfect doctrine for all his 
people." * 

This much-trumpeted solvent of all religious diffi- 
culties has long passed into that limbo which only 
theological antiquaries explore. But soon afterwards 
Cranmer jn the privacy of his study, and without any 
of the pomp and parade which ushered the " King's 
Book" into the world, was toiling at a document 
every phrase of which has become a household word 
wherever the English tongue is spoken. The use of 
litanies had early grown up in the Western Church, 
and from the fact that they were sung in procession 
they were often themselves called processions.* In 
his later years Henry not infrequently ordered spe- 
cial processions for special occasions. There had 
been one in 1 543 on account of the wet harvest, 
but owing, complained the King, to the fact of 
its being in Latin the people "have used to 
come very slackly to the procession " ; and in June, 
1544, when he was about to invade France, he 
ordered a litany to be drawn up in English and to 
be used frequently " not to be for a month or two 
observed and after slenderly considered."' This 

»Z. and p., 1543. i.. 534- 

5 Hence Wriothesley's phrase " a solemn procession upon their 
knees in English " {Chron., i., i86), which now sounds strange. There 
were other processions besides the Litany. See Gasquet and Bishop, 
Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer, p. 54. Calfhill 
{Works, ed. Parker Soc, p. 194) says that litanies were used long 
before processions. See other references to the subject in Cough's 
General Index to the Parker Society's Publications, 

2 Cranmer, Works ^ i., 494. 



1547] Cranmer's Projects 173 

litany was issued by the King's printer on i6 June, and 
a contemporary chronicler describes it as " the god- 
iiest hearing that ever was in this realm." ^ The 
important point about it was its appearance in the 
vernacular tongue, for the use of English in the church 
services was still suspect ; and one of the charges 
brought against Dr. Ridley by the Kentish clergy 
was that the Te Deuni had been sung in English in 
his parish church. * There is, however, no evidence 
that this litany was of Cranmer's composition,' nor 
was it the famous English Litany which has sur- 
vived. For in October, 1544, four months after its 
publication, the Archbishop writes to the King * to 
say that in obedience to Henry's commands he has 
translated certain Latin processions into English, 
using therein ** more than the liberty of a translator," 
because many of the Latin processions were barren 
and little fruitful. Some, therefore, he had left out 
entirely ; others he had added, and in many he had 
made partial alterations. The whole was to be sung 



* Wriothesley's Chronicles^ i., 148. 

«Z. and P., 1543, ii., 306. 

' Strype {Cranmer, i., 184) thinks that it was, but he confuses the 
two litanies of 1544 and 1545. So do Burnet and apparently his 
latest editor, Pocock, who {^Hist. Ref.y iii., 389) says that the litany 
of June, 1544, was included in the Primer of 1545. There is a much 
more considerable confusion in Blunt's Reformation (8th ed., 1897, 
i., 498-499), where, in representing the Litany as the work of a Com- 
mittee of Convocation, he appears to be confusing it with the 
•' King's Book." Canon Dixon and Dr. Gairdner seem to be correct 
in distinguishing between the litanies of 1544 and 1545, and 
Wriothesley also distinguishes them, though not clearly. 

^Cranmer, Works^ ii., 412, 



174 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

or chanted ; " but in mine opinion, the song that 
shall be made thereunto would not be full of notes, 
but, as near as may be, for every syllable a note ; so 
that it may be sung distinctly and devoutly." The 
revision of the Litany or the setting of the " devout 
and solemn note " which Cranmer desired, appears 
to have taken some time ; for it was not till June, 
1545, that the Primer containing this litany was 
published/ In the following August injunctions =» 
were sent to the various Bishops to see that it and 
no other was sung or said in all the churches in their 
dioceses on Sundays and festivals, and it was first 
used at St. PauFs on St. Luke's Day, the i8th of 
October." 

Such was the inception of " the most exquisite of 
English compositions." * That it was not in all its 
parts original was natural, for in this as in all his 
works Cranmer sought not to uproot the old and 
begin a new edifice upon a different foundation, but 
to repair, restore, and improve ; and he used all the 
old material that could be wrought into his new and 
finer Litany. That his Litany was immeasurably 
superior to the old will scarcely be denied. The 
Roman Litany consisted largely of the phrase " Ora 
pro nobis," repeated afresh after each of a scries 



^ Wriothesley, Chron., i., 156. Primers were collections of prayers 
intended not for public, but for private use. English Primers in 
MS. had existed long before the Reformation, and eight have been 
enumerated of earlier date than 1460 (Dixon, ii., 360). 

* Cranmer, Works ^ ii., 495-496. 

* Wriothesley, Chron., i., i6r. 

*Gairdner, Hist, of the English Churchy 1902, p. 230, n. 



154^1 Cranmer s Projects 175 

of saints* names ' ; and even the litanies included 
in MarshalFs and Hilsey's.^ Primers of 1535 and 1539 
were bald and unrhythmical. These were all trans- 
formed by Cranmer, who, albeit no musician, had a 
wonderful ear for English prose, into the beautifully 
smooth and rhythmic cadences of the present Eng- 
lish Litany. And apart from its literary charm, the 
Litany has proved so admirable a vehicle for re- 
ligious devotions and aspirations that its phrases 
have won their way into the hearts and minds of 
miUions who do not profess and call themselves 
members of the English Church. It has stood the 
test of time better than any other part of the Church 
Service Book, itself one of the least perishable of 
human achievements; and it has remained almost 
unchanged from the day that Cranmer penned it to 
the present. The petitions to the Virgin, angels, 
patriarchs, etc., to " pray for us," ' which Cranmer 
inserted after the invocation of the Trinity, were left 
out in all the editions of the Book of Common 
Prayer; and the prayer to be delivered "from the 
tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable 
enormities," * was properly and significantly omitted 

^ £. g., " Sancta Maria Magdalena, ora pro nobis, 
Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis, 
Sancta Katherina, ora pro nobis, 
Sancta Margaretha, ora pro nobis, 
Sancta Helena, ora pro nobis." 
' For Marshall, see the present writer in Diet. Nat. Biog.^ xxxvi., 
250, and for Hilsey, Bishop of Rochester, see ibid.^ xxvi., 433. 
Hilsey's Primer was corrected by Cranmer ( Works ^ ii., 392). 
^ These petitions were not strictly " invocations." 
*This was the one jarring note in Cranmer's Litany (Gairdner, 
History^ p. 230, n.). 
13 



176 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

from the edition of 1559 and was never restored; 
for the rest, there have been only slight verbal altera- 
tions, and those not always improvements.' 

The Parliament which met in the autumn of 1545, 
soon after the first general celebration of the Eng- 
lish Litany, was marked by another blow, if not for 
the Reformation, at least against the old system. 
An Act was passed abolishing chantries or the en- 
dowments of priests to say masses for the souls of 
the departed. The measure could scarcely, as Dr. 
Crome afterwards pointed out, be reconciled with 
a belief in Purgatory, and incidentally it did not a 
little to undermine that article of the Catholic faith ; 
out it originated in no more lofty motive than the 
necessity of meeting the expenses of the war which 
England waged with France from 1 544 to 1 546, and 
the desire of the King to reserve to himself and his 
friends the profits of a confiscation which the de- 
scendants of chantry founders had already begun to 
effect for their own private gain. There was little 
opposition, and even Gardiner subsequently ex- 
pressed his approval of the act; but Cranmer and 
other friends of education regretted that these funds 
were not appropriated to some national object in- 
stead of going, as they mostly did, to swell the pock- 
ets of the landed gentry. 

A more singular incident than the continued pil- 
lage of the Church distinguished this session of Par- 
liament. A bill for the extinction of heresies, which 
presumably must have been more ferocious than the 

» See Parker's First Prayer-Book of Edward VI., Oxford, 1877, 
pp. 268-275. 



1547] Cranmer's Projects 177 

Act of Six Articles, was introduced into the House 
of Lords and read no fewer than five times.* This 
protracted procedure indicates a considerable diverg- 
ence of opinion among the Peers, but in its final form 
their Lordships passed the bill unanimously, and it 
was then sent down to the Commons. Whether it 
expressed the views of the King or not, we do not 
know. If it did not, the Lords were curiously inde- 
pendent in passing it ; but if it did, the Commons 
showed a still more significant independence of both 
King and Lords by rejecting the bill.^ This incident 
can hardly have been anything but a blow to the 
reactionary party and a foreshadowing of the tend- 
ency which the House of Commons, at least, would 
show in the coming reign. Indeed, the old system 
was crumbling away before the inroads of the New 
Learning even while Henry VIII. succeeded in 
maintaining the principal outworks intact ; and this 
last Parliament of Henry's reign sanctioned two 
other small measures quite inconsistent with pre- 
vious Catholic practice. By the first, the Knights 
of St. John, whose Order had been dissolved some 
years before, were released from their vows of celi- 
bacy ; the second enacted that eccle'?iastical jurisdic- 



^ Lords* Journals^ i., 269-271. The now-established limitation of 
three readings for bills was not then the rule in either House of Par- 
liament ; Cranmer was one of the peers to whom the bill was com- 
mitted after the first reading, and then again after the second. 

'It is possible that this difference of opinion between the two 
Houses was the real occasion for the sermon with which Henry 
VIII. closed the session on Christmas Eve, 1545. In any case the 
incident is one of those which show that Parliament was not the 
servile edict-registering body it is often said to have been. 



178 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

tion might be exercised by married doctors of civil 
law/ 

Encouraged perhaps by these symptoms and by 
Gardiner's absence, =^ Cranmer seems to have obtained 
from the King an expression of opinion in favour of 
the demolition of roods "in every church," and of 
the abolition of bell-ringing upon All Hallow night, 
of the covering of images during Lent, and of creep- 
ing to the cross. Cranmer drew up a letter to this 
effect to be signed by the King,' but in the interval 
Henry received despatches from Gardiner averring 
that any further alteration in religion or in ceremo- 
nies would frustrate the negotiations then proceeding 
between England, the Catholic Emperor, and the 
King of France. Henry was, in fact, still at war with 
France and nervous lest his quondam ally, Charles 
v., should join the enemy. Gardiner's representa- 



^ The encroachments of the Civil Law upon both the Canon and 
the English Law was one of the characteristic features of Henry 
VIII. 's reign (see Maitland, English Law and the Renaissance, 1901). 
Civil Law was the Emperor's law and Canon law the Pope's law. 
Henry boasted that England was an Empire and his an imperial 
throne. The Civil Law with its absolutist maxims appealed strongly 
to him and to many Tudor statesmen and thinkers, including Francis 
Bacon; and but for the defeat of the Spanish Armada we should 
probably have had a droit administratif in England not unlike that 
of France. 

^ He was on an embassy to Charles V. from October, 1545, to 
March, 1546. 

^ A curious illustration of Cranmer's caution is his pleading that if 
creeping to the cross were abolished it should only be after the 
reasons for the change had been explained to the people lest they 
should think it implied some diminishing of Chest's honour ( Works^ 



1547] Cranmers Projects 179 

tions were quite enough to make him change his 
mind, for the proposed reforms, even in the eyes 
of a Reformer, must have appeared of slight import- 
ance compared with the necessity of preserving 
the Emperor's friendship. 

They would, moreover, have offended the Catholic 
party at home, which gave abundant signs of vitality 
and power during the last year of Henry's reign. 
Lord-Chancellor Audley, who with Cromwell and 
Cranmer had formed a sort of reforming triumvirate 
at Henry's Court, had died in 1544, and his place 
had been taken by Wriothesley, afterwards Earl of 
Southampton, who, although a prot^g^ of Cromwell 
and a foe of Gardiner, had on Cromwell's fall ab- 
jured his radical opinions and devoted himself with 
zest to the task of crushing heresy. He found a 
worthy colleague in the Solicitor-General, Sir Rich- 
ard Rich,' and the pair, aided by the influence of 
Norfolk, whose taste for burning heretics ceased 
only with his death, were responsible for the re- 
newed persecution that broke out in 1 546. Gardiner, 
too, returned in March, and though his memory has 
perhaps been burdened with an unfair load," his 
influence with the King can hardly be regarded as a 
force tending towards lenity. In April the cele- 
brated preacher, Dr. Crome, delivered at St. Paul's 
Cross the sermon above referred to, pointing out 



' For Wriothesley and Rich see the present writer in Diet. Nat. 
Biogr., Ixiii., 148-154, and xlviii., 123-127. 

' S. R. Maitland, in his Essays on the Reformation, made a clever 
but not altogether convincing effort to clear Gardiner from the 
aspersions of Foxe. 



i8o Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

the inconsistency of the abolition of chantries with 
a belief in Purgatory. He was called before the 
Council and forced to make two recantations. A 
like fate befell two others, a third was burnt, and 
Latimer himself was sent to prison.* In June fol- 
lowed the trials of Anne Askew and Shaxton, the 
former Bishop of Salisbury. Shaxton made a piti- 
ful abjuration, but no threats and no torture could 
shake the constancy of Anne. She was racked in 
the Tower by Wriothesley and Rich, and then in 
July was burnt at Smithfield in the presence of 
Wriothesley, Norfolk, the Lord Mayor of London, 
and many peers and aldermen. In the same month 
proclamations were issued for the seizure and burn- 
ing of all copies of Tyndale's and Coverdale's New 
Testaments and of all the works of Frith, Wycliffe, 
George Joy, William Roy, Barnes, William Turner, 
and Richard Tracy.' 

It was the expiring effort of reaction in Henry's 
reign, and Fortune's wheel came round once more. 
Peace was concluded with France in June, and the 
Emperor was involved in war with the Schmalkaldic 
League of Protestants. Their envoys besought the 
King for aid, and Henry was dallying with a pro- 
posal for a Christian league against the Emperor, 
the Pope, and the Council of Trent." It was the 
policy of Cromwell revived, and Henry invited the 
German princes to send him the names of ten or 
twelve of their learned men that he might choose a 



' Wriothesley, Chron., i., 167-168. 

^ Lives of all these Reformers will be found in the Diet. Nat. Biogr. 

* See A. Hasenclever, Die Politik der Schmalkaldener, 1902. 



1547] Cranmer s Projects i8i 

few with whom to confer on religion. A stranger 
proposition followed. In September, 1546, a French 
ambassador, the Admiral d'Annebaut, came to Eng- 
land, and he, Henry VIII., and Cranmer discussed 
the prospects of a further reformation in both king- 
doms. The King, says Cranmer, leaning on his and 
the Admiral's arms, was 

" at this point not only within half a year alter to have 
changed the mass into a communion . . . but also 
utterly to have extirped and banished the Bishop of 
Rome and his usurped power out of both their realms 
and dominions. And herein the King's Highness willed 
me to pen a form thereof to be sent to the French King 
to consider of. But the deep and most secret providence 
of Almighty God, owing to this realm a sharp scourge 
for our iniquities, prevented (for a time) this their most 
godly device and intent, by taking to his mercy both 
these princes." * 

The war of domestic faction was also going ill 
for the Catholics. In November Gardiner had a 
violent quarrel with the future Duke of Northumber- 
land ' and a dispute with Henry over an exchange 
of lands. One or the other affair caused his ab- 



' Foxe on Morice's authority in Acts and Monuments, ed. Town 
send, v., 563-564. The story is corroborated by a letter from Hooper 
written in the latter part of December, 1546, to Bullinger : "The 
bearer will inform your excellence of the good news we received 
yesterday from Strasburgh. There will be a change of relig- 
ion in England, and the King will take up the gospel of Christ, 
in case the Emperor should be defeated in this most destructive 
war ; should the gospel sustain a loss he will then retain his impious 
mass." — Original Letters, Parker Soc, i., 41. 

'Odet de Selve, Corresp. Politique, 1886, p. 51. 



*.». 



1 8? Thomas Cranmer [1541- 

sence from the Council, and there is no record of 
his attendance between the middle of November 
and the middle of January, though, according to 
Foxe*s story, he used to accompany members of 
Council to the door of the Council chamber to make 
people think he was in as good credit as ever. 
Finally, the ruin of Surrey, the poet, and his father, 
the Duke of Norfolk, decisively turned the balance 
in favour of the Reformers. " Nor," wrote one of 
Bullinger's correspondents, ** is any one wanting but 
Winchester alone, and unless he also be caught, the 
evangelical truth cannot be restored." ^ Gardiner was 
not yet to be laid by the heels, but the chief influ- 
ence in the Council had passed to the future Protector 
Somerset, whose wife had already betrayed her own 
and her husband's theological predilections by secret 
support of Anne Askew ; and in the final draft of 
Henry's will, which was drawn up on St. Stephen's 
Day, 26 December, the Bishop of Winchester was 
excluded from the Council of Regency appointed to 
govern the realm during the nonage of Edward VI. 
The sands in the glass of Henry's life were now fast 
running out, and rumours of his death were rife at 
the beginning of January, 1547 ; but the end did not 
come until the early hours of the 28th. In his last 
moments the King turned towards him who had been 
his best friend in life ; and feeling that his strength 
was ebbing he sent late at night to fetch Cranmer 
from Croydon. When the Archbishop reached 
Whitehall the King was no longer able to speak ; all 
he could do was to stretch out his hand to Cranmer 



' Original Letters ^ Parker Soc, ii., 638, 639. 




KING HENRY Vlll. PROBABLY ABOUT 1540. 

fSOVI A CH*LK DRA.VING BY H0L3E.N, IN THE ROYAL PRINT CABINET, MUNICH, BV PERMISS10^» W 
MESSRS. GOUPIl, THE OWNERS OF THE NEGATiyE* 



1547] Cranmer^s Projects 183 

and reply with an affirmative grasp when the Arch- 
bishop urged him to call upon Christ's mercy and 
give some token that he trusted in the Lord. So 
died Henry VIII., and the last support of which he 
was conscious on earth was the hand of the man 
whose only support he himself had been in the time 
of trouble. Faithless to many, to Cranmer the King 
was true unto death ; and from that day to his own 
last agony the Archbishop left his beard to grow 
in witness of his grief. 



CHAPTER VII 

CRANMER AND THE FIRST BOOK OF COMMON 

PRAYER 

WHILE Cranmer was soothmg the last moments 
of Henry's life, two ministers were pacing 
up and down the gallery outside the chamber of 
death, busily discussing plans for dividing the mantle 
of the dying King. One was the Earl of Hertford, 
better known as Protector Somerset, the brother of 
Queen Jane Seymour ; and the other was Sir Wil- 
liam Paget, the King's Secretary, and one of the 
astutest politicians of the age. On Monday morn- 
ing, the 3 1st of January, Lord-Chancellor Wriothesley 
announced to Parliament the demise of the Crown, 
and in the afternoon the first meeting of the Coun- 
cil of Regency was held in the Tower. Cranmer's 
name as Archbishop of Canterbury naturally headed 
the list of members ; but he had no political ambi- 
tions or taste for political intrigue, and though his 
voice was more potent in the affairs of the Church, 
his political influence does not appear to have been 
any greater in the reign of Edward VI. than it had 
been under Henry VIII. There is little doubt that 
he welcomed the appointment of Hertford to the 
Protectorship, for the Earl was probably the states- 

184 



[1547-49] First Book of Common Prayer 185 

man of the time with whom the Archbishop was in 
the fullest agreement and sympathy. He was a man 
of large and noble ideas, but these were little in 
harmony with the prevailing temper of the times/ 
He believed in civil and, as far as possible, in re- 
ligious liberty; and not one instance of death or 
torture for religious opinion stains the brief and 
troubled annals of his rule. He has been denounced 
as a "rank Calvinist,"^ apparently on no other 
ground than that Calvin once wrote him a letter,' 
and has been accused of feverish zeal for a Protes- 
tant revolution on the entirely erroneous assumption 
that he was responsible for the policy of the Second 
Book of Common Prayer and the Second Act of 
Uniformity.* 

A week after Hertford's election as Protector, 
Paget read to the Council a list of honours which 
Henry VHI. had intended conferring upon the ex- 
ecutors of his will.' Only about half of these were 
carried into effect; but Hertford became Duke of 

' On the character of Somerset and his policy, see the present 
writer's England under Protector Somerset^ 1900, or, more briefly, in 
vol. ii., chap, xiv., of the Cambridge Modern History^ 1904. 

* N. Pocock in English Hist. Rev.^ x., 418. 

^ See British Museum, Stowe MS., 155, f. 9. 

^ These of course were passed in 1552 after Somerset's death. He 
was deprived of the Protectorate in 1549, and cannot be held re- 
sponsible for acts of the Government after that date ; he must be 
judged by the Reformation so far as it had proceeded by October, 

1549. 

^ There is no evidence that these intentions were fabricated ; the 
ruling faction would not then proprio motu have conferred an earl- 
dom on Wriothesley, nor invented instructions which they did not 
mean to carry out. 



1 86 



Thomas Cranmer 



[1547- 



Somerset, Wriothesley Earl of Southampton, and 
Lisle (the future Duke of Northumberland) was 
created Earl of Warwick. Preparations were then 
made for the coronation of Edward VI. The cere- 
mony was performed by Cranmer in Westminster 
Abbey on Sunday, the 20th of February; and the 
Archbishop has been blamed for lending his help to 
an assertion of Tudor absolutist tendencies by pre- 
senting Edward as King before exacting the oath to 
observe the liberties of the people/ He seems in- 
deed to have considered the forms of the coronation 
as somewhat empty and as conveying no privilege 
or power; but technically, at any rate, popular as- 
sent had already been given to Edward's succession 
through the mouth of Parliament in the reign of 
Henry VHI., when the crown had been settled on 
him by statute.^ Edward VI. was therefore the 
first King of England who came to the throne with 
a parliamentary title,^ and no dissent in the audience 
at Westminster could have affected the validity of 
an Act of Parliament. 

The coronation of Edward VI. was speedily fol- 
lowed by the fall of Lord-Chancellor Wriothesley, 



* Hallam, ed. 1884, i., 38, n. ; Dixon, ii., 413. Cranmer's ad- 
dress at the coronation is printed in his Works, ii., 126-127; but 
the original is lost, and I doubt the authenticity of the speech as 
printed. 

- 35 Henry VIII., c. i. ; Henry VIII. himself had no power to leave 
the crown away from Edward, but only to decide the claims of Mary 
and Elizabeth, whose legitimacy was uncertain. 

^ The cases of Henry IV. and Henry VII. are not parallel, because 
in 1399 and 1485 Parliament only gave its assent to a fact already 
accomplished by unparliamentary methods. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 187 

who was convicted of an unconstitutional and illegal 
act in issuing a commission out of Chancery with- 
out a warrant from the Council. Wriotheslcy, as 
we have seen, had been closely identified with the 
repressive measures of Henry's last years, and his 
removal from the Council materially smoothed the 
path of religious reform. Such a policy was both 
natural and inevitable considering the constitution 
of the new Government and the circumstances in 
which it was placed. It was known before the end 
of Henry's reign that the Protector was " well dis- 
posed to pious doctrine and abominated the fond 
inventions of the Papists " * He had long " not 
only favoured, but also furthered the truth of God 
and his glory in most dangerous times"'; and 
the ruin of Norfolk and Surrey, the exclusion of 
Gardiner ' and Thirlby from the list of Henry's 
executors, and now the degradation of Wriothes- 
lcy left the Catholic party without a leader. Tun- 
stall and Sir Anthony Browne were respectable 
Catholics, but neither had the force of character 
to stem the tide, which even the sluice-gates of the 
Six Articles had barely enabled Henry VHI. to 
check. 

That ferocious statute and, indeed, all the heresy 
laws ceased to be operative with Somerset's acces- 



' Original Letters, i., 256. 

'Brit. Mus., Royal MS.^ 17, C. v., quoted in Gasquet and 
Bishop, p. 158. 

^ There is no valid reason for believing that his exclusion was not 
the deliberate act of Henry VIII. See England under Protector 
Somerset, pp. 21-23. 



1 88 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

sion to power ; and the pent-up flood spread tumultu- 
ously over the land. The majority of Englishmen 
probably had no keen desire for doctrinal change, but 
zeal and energy were on the side of the Reformers, 
and the overwhelming need for a practical reformation 
was ever before the eyes of the Government. So 
much minute criticism has of late been expended 
upon the lives and characters of the leading Reform- 
ers, that the forces which made reform inevitable 
have been completely left out of sight, and the 
supremely inadequate theory has gained ground 
that the whole movement originated, first, in Henry 
VIII. 's desire for Anne Boleyn, and, secondly, in the 
greed of the laity for the spoils of the Church. 
Those motives did exist ; but great revolutions do 
not arise from petty causes, and the magnitude of 
the Reformation measures the strength of the forces 
which brought it to pass. The state of the Church 
not only provoked its loss of power and privilege, 
but threatened the nation with ruin; and the Re- 
formation was an essential condition of the great- 
ness of modern England. There is no need to rely 
for proof of the wide-spread corruption upon the 
fervid invectives of Latimer or the strident censures 
of Foxe ; dry and musty records are far more con- 
clusive and eloquent, and the recently published* 
register of the visitation of the Bishopric of Glouces- 
ter in 155 1 will perhaps be found sufficient for our 
purpose. Three hundred and eleven clergy were then 
examined ; one hundred and seventy-one could not 

* By Dr. James Gairdner in the English Historical Review, Janu- 
ary, 1904, pp. 98-121. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 189 

repeat the Ten Commandments in English, ten could 
not say the Lord's Prayer, ttventy-seven could not 
tell who was its author, and thirty could not tell 
where it was to be found ; sixty-two incumbents were 
absent, and most of them were pluralists who did 
not reside in the diocese. There is no reason to 
suppose that the clergy of Gloucester were more 
ignorant than their brethren elsewhere; and the 
weakness of the Church is really no mystery. The 
condition of the clergy thus affords some excuse for 
a Government which sought to reform them, and 
helps to explain the contempt in which they were 
held by a laity growing in knowledge. 

In reality the Council of Edward VI. found it 
necessary to restrain rather than to stimulate the 
ardour of the Reformers ; and one of its earliest acts 
was to compel the wardens and curate of a London 
parish church to restore the images they had re- 
moved.* The new-found liberty of the people, in fact, 
degenerated into licence, and every parish church was 
liable to become the scene of religious experiment. 
The destruction of images proceeded so fast, and 
was in many districts so popular, that the Council 
was afraid to enforce a general restoration. Later 
in 1547 it was driven to issue a Proclamation 
against the rough treatment which priests exper- 
ienced at the hands of London serving-men and 
apprentices," and to send round commissioners to 
make an inventory of church goods in order to 
stay the extensive embezzlement practised by local 

1 Acts p. c, 1547-50, p. 25. 

^ Ibid., p. 521. -^ 



iQo Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

magnates. In 1548 the Government put forth fur- 
ther Proclamations* denouncing unauthorised inno- 
vations, silencing preachers who urged them, and 
prohibiting the eating of flesh in Lent ; and endeav- 
oured to stop the growing practice of divorce. The 
first Act of Parliament passed in the new reign was 
directed, not against Catholics, but against those 
who impugned or spoke " unreverently " of the 
Sacrament of the Altar. Convocation thought the 
moment had come for recovering the position from 
which Henry VIII. had driven it, and petitioned' 
either that ecclesiastical laws should be submitted 
for its approval, or that the clergy should be read- 
mitted to their lost representation in the House of 
Commons. 

All this should tend to modify the idea that the 
new Government under the inspiration of Cranmer 
or the Protector rushed headlong into a policy of 
rash religious revolution without the least justifi- 
cation of popular support. Cranmer indeed is re- 
ported as saying that it was better to have attempted 
a reformation in Henry's reign than during the mi- 
nority of Edward, for no one would have ventured 
to oppose Henry.' The remark is characteristic of 
the Archbishop's tendency to rely on a stronger 
power; but the words that follow show that Cran- 
mer was afraid of the effects of a drastic reformation 
and not of the middle course which the Protec- 



^ Strype, Eccl. Mem., II., ii., 346. 

*Wilkins, Concilia, iv., 15; Cardwell, Synodalia,\x.,/^\^\ Makower, 
Const. Hist, of the Church of England, p. 207. 
2 Cranmer's Works, ii., 416, n. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 191 

tor actually pursued ' ; and Gardiner, probably not 
without some reason, insinuated in his letter * to 
Somerset that the Protector was encouraged in 
his measures by the Archbishop himself. The 
young King's minority was a great disadvantage, 
particularly as it gave the opponents of reform a 
plausible though not a sound constitutional argu- 
ment against any change. The King, they main- 
tained, was personally Supreme Head of the Church, 
and during his nonage that authority was in abey- 
ance ; it could not be exercised by the Council or 
Protector in his name. This argument proved too 
much, for Gardiner, Bonner, Tunstall, Thirlby, and 
all the Catholic bishops had, albeit reluctantly, taken 
out new licences for the exercise of spiritual juris- 
diction at the commencement of the reign ; and if 
the royal supremacy was in abeyance these licences 
were all invalid. It was impossible to set up a dis- 
tinction between the Supreme Head's power to con- 
fer ecclesiastical jurisdiction and his power to effect 
ecclesiastical changes : if the one could be exercised 
in his minority, so could the other. Constitutionally, 
too, the argument was quite unsound. At no period 
in English history has it been admitted that the 
royal authority was legally any the less during a 



' " Therefore," he continues, " the Council hath forborne es- 
pecially to speak thereof, and of other things which gladly they 
would have reformed in this visitation [1547], referring all those 
and such like matters to the discretion of the visitors." 

^ Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi., 42 ; in his reply to Gardiner the Pro- 
tector said he was "pressed on both sides," and there can be no 
doubt that he and the Government policy down to 1549 represented 
^ via media between two extremes, 
H 



192 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

minority or during a period of royal insanity than 
when the King was of full age and sound mind.* 
To countenance such a theory would be to clog the 
wheels of government and impair the security of the 
State just when it would naturally be most liable 
to danger ; and a Government could only adopt such 
a view in a suicidal frame of mind. The Council 
felt that the question was crucial and fundamental ; 
and its measures against Gardiner and Bonner were 
mainly directed towards extorting from them an 
acknowledgment that the King's authority was as 
great as if he had reached maturity.' 

Fortified by this conviction, by the expressions in 
favour of further reform which Henry had used in 
the previous autumn, and by the presumption aris- 
ing from the fact that Henry had entrusted the edu- 
cation of his son exclusively to men of the New 
Learning, Cranmer and the Council undertook the 
task of carrying out those projects which had been 
suggested or begun under Henry VHI. The tenden- 
cies of the Government were not obscurely indicated 
by the sermons which Bishop Barlow, Dr. Nicholas 



* Henry VIII. and his Parliament had done something to encour- 
age this unconstitutional view by enacting that Edward might on 
reaching his twenty-fourth year annul all acts passed during his 
minority. Hence the King of France made difficulties about con- 
cluding treaties with the new Government on the ground that they 
might be considered null in after years. 

^ A consistent Roman Catholic like More would have agreed with 
the Council on the ground that at no time of his life could a tem- 
poral sovereign be supreme head of the Church ; but Gardiner and 
Bonner had given away the best part of their case by acknowledging 
Henry's supremacy. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 193 

Ridley, and Cranmer's commissary, Dr. Glazier,* 
preached during Lent, 1547, at St. Paul's Cross 
against images and other ceremonies ; and the part 
that Gardiner would play under the new regime 
was revealed when he protested that there was no 
authority for making the changes suggested by Bar- 
low until Edward VI. came of age. But the first 
avowed indication of the Government's policy was 
the publication of Udall's edition of Erasmus's Para- 
phrase'* of certain portions of the New Testament, 
of Cranmer's Book of Homilies, and of a number 
of Injunctions which were enforced in a general visita- 
tion of the realm. 

None of these measures can be described as revo- 
lutionary. Erasmus's Paraphrase was obviously not a 
Protestant document ; Udall's edition had been pre- 
pared in the reign of Henry VIII. and the Princess 
Mary herself had taken a hand in the translation.^ 
Gardiner, indeed, attacked it vehemently because 
the version, like *' Cranmer's Bible," embodied trans- 
lations nearer the original sense than the Latin 
words with their accretion of mediaeval ideas; but 
on the question of scholarship his authority would 
hardly be preferred to that of Erasmus, whose " great 



' Dixon and Dr. Gairdner say Glazier preached at Court, but their 
authorities, Stow, Burnet, and Strype, say St. Paul's Cross. 

* Most bibliographical works and other authorities (including the 
D. N. B., Iviii., 7) say this Paraphrase did not appear until 1548, 
but Gardiner, writing on 14 October, 1547, says both it and the 
Homilies "flowed abroad by liberty of the printers" before that 
date. It was probably issued with the Homilies and Injunctions on 
31 July, 1547. 

' Udall's Preface, 



194 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

faults" he denounced. He was on firmer ground 
when he showed that the Paraphrase and the Homi- 
lies did not on some points agree. 

The latter production was an old scheme of Cran- 
mer's. He had been engaged on it as early as 1539/ 
and in 1543 a collection of Homilies had been sub- 
mitted to Convocation without obtaining its ap- 
proval.'* The present volume consisted of twelve 
discourses which explained the proper use of the 
Scriptures and the main points of the Christian 
Faith, such as good works and charity, denounced 
the sins of perjury, apostasy, and adultery, and con- 
cluded with an exhortation to obedience and a 
warning against religious contention. Cranmer was 
probably responsible for the authorship of several 
and the tone of all, and they were directed, on the 
one hand, against superstitious practices, and, on the 
other, against the preaching of the " hot-gospellers.** ' 
On the whole they were rather practical than doc- 
trinal treatises, and the dogmas of the Six Articles 
were not directly impugned. They did not on 
that account escape Gardiner's censure, and he at- 
tacked especially the Homily on Salvation, which, 
he complained, excluded charity from the work of 
justification, while Bucer singled it out for special 



»Z. andP,, XIV., i., 466. 

'■^ See above, p. i66. 

' Three, on Salvation, on Faith, and on Good Works, are printed 
in Cranmer's Works, ii., 128-149; probably he edited the others. 
He wrote to Gardiner, asking him to assist in their preparation, and 
indicating apparently that part of their design was to correct rash 
innovations in preaching. (Dixon, ii., 426.) 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 195 

commendation.* On this point, indeed, Cranmer 
seems to have outrun the views" of the Council, for 
in the Injunctions which were issued at the same 
time it was asserted that the charity which con- 
sisted in relieving the poor was " a true worshipping 
of God, required earnestly upon pain of everlasting 
damnation." ^ 

These Injunctions, which were based upon Crom- 
well's, were even more largely concerned with con- 
duct than the Homilies. There was to be at least 
one sermon a quarter in every parish church'; the 
Paternoster, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments 
were to be learnt by all people ; children were to be 
properly educated and trained to some honest means 
of livelihood; the sacraments duly administered ; a 
Bible and Paraphrase of Erasmus to be provided 
in every church, and a register of weddings, christ- 
enings, and burials kept; every incumbent was to 
devote a portion of his income to the maintenance 
of some scholar at school or at a university, and the 
parishioners were to do their part by contributing to 
the relief of the poor; the sale of benefices was to 
be punished by deprivation of the presentee and by 
forfeiture of the presentor's patronage. There were 
also injunctions against the superstitious use of im- 



'Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vi., 45; Strype, Ecd. Memorials, 

II., i., 50. 

^Cardwell, Documentary Annals, p. 18 ; the Injunctions with the 
articles or questions which the visitors were to put to incumbents are 
printed by Card well, pp. 4-31. 

^ That such an injunction should have been necessary proves that 
Latimer's famous invectives against " unpreaching" clergy were not 
exaggerated. 



196 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

ages, the veneration of relics, and the celebration of 
"feigned" miracles; but the principal innovations 
appear to have been the abolition of processions, 
the reading of the Gospel and the Epistle in English, 
and the saying or singing of the Litany in English 
by the priests and choir kneeling *' in the midst of 
the church."' 

There was little in these Injunctions that was not 
admirable and in keeping with that aspiration for a 
purging of the practice of the Church which sup- 
plied the moral force of the Reformation. They 
express, in fact, an ideal of conduct to which the 
Church has not yet attained, and the sale of livings, 
for instance, has shocked the devout and defied the 
reformer from that day to this. The halting success 
which attended these efforts was largely due to the 
fact that creed and not conduct has ever been the 
cry of religious parties. Nine parts out of ten in 
these Injunctions related to conduct ; yet with one 
accord Catholics and Protestants neglected these 
nine parts, on which they agreed, in order to fight 
over the tenth, on which they differed." The detail 
to which Gardiner objected most strongly was the 
injunction that every incumbent should obtain and 
diligently study the recently published Paraphrase 



' Cardwell, p. 14 ; cf. Gasquet and Bishop, p. 54. The motive 
given for the change was " to avoid all contention and strife 
... by reason of fond courtesy and challenging of places in 
procession, and also that they may the more quietly hear what is 
said or sung to their edifying." 

^ Dr. Gasquet and Mr. Bishop admit that these Injunctions con- 
tain "reasonable and salutary provisions." 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 197 

of Erasmus. He had, he said, favoured Erasmus 
before he read this book ; but rtow he agreed with 
those who said that Luther only hatched the eggs 
which Erasmus laid/ On broader grounds the 
Bishop of Winchester attacked the Injunctions^ the 
Homilies, and the Paraphrase — in short, the whole 
policy of Cranmer and the Government — as being 
unconstitutional ; and his letters to the Protector 
on this question contain one of the most interest- 
ing constitutional arguments propounded in Tudor 
times. 2 It is in effect a plea that the King's au- 
thority in the Church ought to be and was subject 
to similar limitations as those which the common 
law imposed upon his prerogative in the State. 
These Injunctions , he said, were mere royal com- 
mands ; they were not based upon statutory author- 
ity, and could not have the force of law. Obedience 
to them might involve him in a peril like Wolsey's, 
who found that the royal permission to execute 
legatine jurisdiction could not protect him against 
the statute of Prcsmunire, There was much plaus- 
ibility and some force in this argument, and it is a 
pity that Gardiner forgot his own lesson so con- 
veniently in the earlier days of Queen Mary'; but 
statesmen in power do not always observe the 
excellent maxims they enunciate in opposition. 
Nor, indeed, was Gardiner's reasoning really sound. 



»Foxe, vi., 47. 

'^ Ibid., vi., 42-52. 

' The nvass was then re-established without any statutory author- 
ity, and the laws of the preceding reign were treated as null before 
they were repealed by the Parliament, 



1 98 Thomas Cranmef [1547- 

Wolsey could legally be condemned to the penalties 
of Prcemunire, because Henry VI 1 1, had no statu- 
tory authority to license his exercise of legatine 
jurisdiction. But the Act of Supremacy and the 
subsequent legislation of Henry's reign had given 
the King legal authority to reform any ecclesiastical 
abuses that he thought needed reformation.* The 
Royal Supremacy was in fact to be really royal and 
not parliamentary. The Popes had not been fet- 
tered by common-law restrictions; they claimed 
absolute authority in the Church, and so far as 
jurisdiction went, the whole of that authority had 
been bestowed on Henry VHI. Gardiner, in fact, 
had welcomed the exercise of these powers when 
they went to restrain heretics ; he viewed them in a 
different light when they were employed to effect a 
reformation, and his resistance to authority involved 
his incarceration in the Fleet prison. Bonner courted 
a similar fate, but he soon admitted that his protest 
against the visitation afforded a bad example, and 
was released in time to take part in the Parliament 
which met in November.^ 

Convocation assembled at the same time, and the 
occasion is remarkable as being one of the few 



* See above, p. 88. 

' Dr. Gairdner, p. 254, thinks he remained in prison till released 
by the general pardon, passed as the last act of the session, but sev- 
eral votes of his are recorded in the Lords' yournals : e. g., p. 308, 
on 15 December he voted against the first draft of the Chantries 
Act, and on the lOth he voted against the Bill for Administration of 
the Sacrament. He was also in his place at the meeting of Parlia- 
ment on 4 November. It was Gardiner who was released by the 
operation of the general pardon. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 199 

instances since 1529 in which the clerical and lay 
representatives of the nation have been of one 
mind with regard to theological questions. Convo- 
cation unanimously recommended at Cranmer's 
instance* the administration of the Communion in 
both elements,^ and by a majority of fifty-three to 
twenty-two votes it petitioned for the repeal of all 
enactments prohibiting the marriage of the clergy.' 
The former recommendation was embodied in a bill 
and passed through both Houses of Parliament, 
having been incorporated in the House of Lords 
with another bill directed against irreverence towards 
the Sacrament. The object of this incorporation, 
which was due to Somerset, was no doubt to concil- 
iate the Catholic bishops ; but in this it failed, for 
the bishops of London, Norwich, Hereford, Wor- 
cester, and Chichester all voted against it.* The 
second measure was not so fortunate; a bill with 
the singular title, " that lay and married men may be 
priests and have benefices," was passed in the House 
of Commons, but it only reached the House of Lords 



' Strype, Cranmer, i, 221. 

' This was no novelty, for, apart from primitive practice and the 
Utraquists of Bohemia, the Cistercians are said to have commonly 
administered the Communion in both elements, and the same practice 
is alleged to have been countenanced in a provincial constitution 
of Archbishop Peckham. (Foxe, vi., 237.) 

^ Strype, Cranmer ^ i., 222. 

* Lords' yournals, and Gasquet and Bishop, pp. 69-72. Strype 
{Eccl. Mem., II., i., 97) thinks this Act "so properly and well 
expressed" that the "penning thereof" must have been done by 
Cranmer himself, and later on he "conjectures" that it was "of 
Cranmer's procuring and drawing up, too." There is nothing im- 
probable in the suggestion, but I know of no evidence for it. 



200 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

on the last day of the session (24 December), and 
proceeded no further.' 

More important was another act of this session, 
" occasioned," says Bishop Burnet, " by a speech that 
Archbishop Cranmer had made in Convocation.'" 
Therein he had exhorted the clergy to study the 
Scriptures and consider " what things were in the 
Church that needed reformation " ; to which reply 
was made that so long as the Six Articles remained 
in force, it was perilous to express an opinion. 
The difficulty was reported by Cranmer to the 
Council, which thereupon is said to have given or- 
ders for the drafting of a bill to repeal these Acts. 
This bill, which produced some lively debates in 
both Houses of Parliament, and was under discus- 



* Lords' yournals, i., 311 ; this singular phrase is not an echo of 
the " universalist " theory of the priesthood which attracted many- 
adherents in Germany in 1525. All it meant was that marriage 
should be no bar to ordination. This bill apparently did not, like 
the Act of the succeeding year, permit the marriage of priests already 
in orders and can hardly have been satisfactory to Cranmer. 

^ Hist. Ref.^'n.^ 92 ; this is an exaggeration of Cranmer's 
share in the Act. It was mainly due to the Protector. Con- 
vocation met on 5 November, when its only business appears to 
have been the election of a Prolocutor. It then adjourned till the 
1 8th ; but meanwhile the Act of Repeal had been introduced into 
the House of Lords on the loth. Yet there is some truth in Bur- 
net's story, for on 9 December a deputation of the clergy waited on 
Cranmer to learn ' ' what indemnity and impunity this house shall 
have to treat of matters of religion in cases forbidden by the statutes 
of the realm to treat" (Strype, Cranmer, i., 222). Presumably Con- 
vocation did not enjoy or understand parliamentary privilege ; the 
Six Articles would have been perpetual had it been treason or felony 
to discuss their repeal in Parliament. The Act of Repeal was then 
awaiting its third reading in the House of Commons. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 201 

sion nearly the whole of the session, is one of the 
most remarkable in English history. It not only 
destroyed at a blow almost the whole of Henry 
VIII. *s repressive legislation, but established for 
the first time a considerable measure of freedom of 
opinion and freedom of the press. Treason was 
reduced to the moderate definition which was laid 
down by Edward III. and is still the law with slight 
modification. All heresy Acts from the days of 
Richard II. were repealed, all felonies created by 
Henry VIII. were abolished, and no one was to be 
condemned for any sort of treason unless he was 
charged within thirty days of the date of the offence, 
and either confessed or was accused by two sufficient 
and lawful witnesses.' The Act giving the King's 
Proclamations the force of law was also repealed, 
and that enabling the King to annul laws on reach- 
ing the age of twenty-four was modified. With the 
exception of the Royal Supremacy, which was still 
to some extent' guarded by penalties of treason, 
there was to be full liberty to discuss religious ques- 
tions and to print in English the Scriptures and all 
kinds of theological treatises. It was, in fact, an 
attempt to settle the great question of the Reforma- 



* Hallam and all other authorities have written as though this 
clause first appeared in the Act of 1552. For a more detailed de- 
scription see the present writer's England under Protector Somerset^ 

PP- 59-67. 

^ It was no longer treason to deny the Royal Supremacy by 
*' open word" (a limitation which would have enabled Sir Thomas 
More to escape), but it was still treason to do so in writing. The 
Papacy was, in fact, to be excluded from the argument, the real 
question at issue being between Protestant and Anglo-Catholic, 



202 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

tion by public discussion ; and the only restriction 
imposed on the liberty of the press was the salutary 
provision, which was enacted in 1 548 and still re- 
mains in force, that every publication must bear the 
name and address of the printer and the publisher. 
In two other measures which came before this 
session of Parliament Cranmer took an active part. 
On the 15 December, 1547, he with the Bishops 
of London, Ely, Norwich, Hereford, Worcester, and 
Chichester, voted against the Chantries BilP on its 
fourth reading, and his influence is illustrated by the 
fact that even at that late stage of the proceedings 
an amendment was introduced into the bill to meet 
his criticisms. What they were precisely is not 
known ; but Cranmer voted for the bill in its final 
form, though all the other malcontents persisted in 
their opposition. To him also the Lords committed 
a bill for abolishing the pretence of electing Bishops 
by their Chapters and providing for direct nomination 
by royal letters patent. This was really nothing more 
than a recognition of the fait accompli; for Henry 
VHL's Parliament had empowered him to nominate 
in case the Chapter omitted to elect his candidate 
within twelve days, and had made rejection of the 
royal candidate an offence against Prcemunire ; nor. 



^ See England under Protector Somerset, pp. 123-129. The 
chief misconceptions about this Act arise from exaggerating its 
scope. It did not confiscate all the property of guilds, nor did it 
abolish masses for the dead ; all it did was to abolish certain perpet- 
ual foundations and transfer the revenues to the King for the ex- 
press purpose of founding schools. See, on its secular aspect, Ashley, 
Economic History^ ii., 139, etsqq.^ and, on its religious aspect, Gasquet 
and Bishop, pp. 82-83. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 203 

in fact, has there been a single instance since the 
Reformation of successful resistance to the royal dic- 
tation. But Cranmer's emendation of the bill does 
not appear to have pleased the Lords, and on the 
following day it was entrusted to a committee con- 
sisting of Bishop Tunstall and Goodrich, the chief 
Baron of the Exchequer, and the Attorney-General.* 
So far as legislation went, the results of Edward 
VI. 's first year certainly indicated no violent change 
with the past ; to eager Reformers they seemed not 
only moderate but meagre. The clergy were still 
in the bonds of celibacy, the change in the method 
of appointing bishops was only one of form, and 
even the grant of the cup to the laity was a conces- 
sion at which the Popes had connived in Bohemia 
and which many good Catholics had been willing to 
make in Germany.^^ For the rest, it might seem that 
Parliament wished the nation to argue the matter 
out for itself. But Cranmer and the Government 
thought it their duty to give the nation a lead, and 
even on occasion to require that the lead should be 
followed in the interests of peace and quietness. 
From the beginning of the reign the Royal Chapel 
had afforded an example for others to imitate. 



'Canon Dixon {Hist., ii., 459, note) says that the bill " owed 
its final form " to Cranmer, but he has overlooked this second com- 
mission ; See Lords' youmals, 15 and 16 December, 1547. The 
Act was, of course, repealed in Mary's reign, and excepted in 1559 
from Elizabeth's general repeal of Mary's ecclesiastical legislation ; 
so the system of congi d'Slire was restored and remains in force, giv- 
ing to the Chapters the shadow of a power, the substance of which is 
retained by the Crown. 

^ See Cambridge Modern History, ii., 240. 



204 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

Compline was there sung in English on Easter Mon- 
day, 1547, the sermon was preached, and the Te 
Deum sung in English on 18 September to cele- 
brate the Protector's victory at Pinkie over the 
Scots ; and at the opening of Parliament on 4 No- 
vember the Gloria in Excelsis^ the Creed, and the 
Agnus were all sung in the vernacular tongue. At 
the same time Thomas Sternhold,* a gentleman of 
the Court, who had been in trouble in 1543 for 
advanced religious views, was engaged in composing 
a metrical version of the Psalms in English, designed 
both to promote their vogue and to supplant the 
" lewd " and offensive ballads which found too much 
favour with reformers of the baser sort. 

So, too, Cranmer had no mind to be idle till Par- 
liament met again, and he believed that the vast 
powers conferred by the Act of Supremacy imposed 
a moral obligation upon the Government to lead the 
people along what it considered the strait and 
narrow way. The services of the Church had not 
been touched by Parliament, but soon after it rose 
the Archbishop submitted to his colleagues a series 
of questions intended to elicit their opinions on the 
subject of the mass or communion service." This 
transformation had been one of the projects con- 
sidered by Henry VIII. in the last year of his life, 
and only prevented, according to Cranmer, by his 
death. Parliament and Convocation had now both 
enjoined the administration of the Sacrament in 

' See Diet. Nat, Biogr., liv., 223. 

^The date must have been between 20 December, 1547, and 7 
February, 1548 ; see Gasquet and Bishop, p. 84. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 205 

both elements, and it fell to the Bishops to draw up 
some form for the rite. If it had been the intention 
of Henry VIII. to change the rriass into a com- 
munion service, that intention was certainly not car- 
ried into effect at this juncture, for the result of the 
deliberations of the divines was the retention of the 
old mass,* with the addition of a communion service 
for the laity. " It would almost seem," say two 
Catholic writers, "that the action of two minds 
working with different intentions is to be traced in 
the composition of this Order of Communion.*** 
Cranmer's was the mind working for reform, and 
his answers to the questions circulated ' among the 
Bishops are, with one exception, in favour* of inno- 
vation. He objected to the terms "oblation and 
sacrifice," declaring that the mass was only a " mem- 
ory and representation " * of the Sacrifice of the 
Cross. Its virtue was limited to the receivers of the 
communion, and the laity derived no benefit from 
private masses performed by priests ; these he 
thought should cease, and by securing that the laity 

* /. ^., the private masses performed by the priest in which no 
layman communicated. There might be several of these daily, and 
they were the special aversion of reformers in all countries, implying 
as they did that each mass was a sacrifice, performed by the priest 
for the laity, whose participation was unnecessary, although the 
communion might be administered to them at any mass (Gasquet 
and Bishop, p. 91). 

'^Ibid., p. 93, n. 

3 The original of these questions is in the library of Corpus Christi 
College, Cambridge. (MS. 105, ff. 230-231); the answers with the 
questions are printed by Burnet (ed. Pocock, v., 197-217) from 4 
Lambeth MS. 

* Burnet, v., 201, 



2o6 Thomas Granmer [1547- 

should only communicate on certain public occa- 
sions, of which due notice was to be given, he pre- 
pared the way for their abolition. 

Cranmer's propositions were supported in the main 
by Ridley, now Bishop of Rochester, Holbeach of 
Lincoln, Barlow of St. Davids, and by Drs. Cox and 
Taylor ; but the majority took the Catholic view, and 
the Protector was averse to violent measures. The 
chief point was the language to be used. The Cath- 
olics disliked the adoption of English, as separating 
the ceremony in England from the manner and cus- 
tom of other countries. That objection would have 
been fatal to much else in the Reformation; but 
Cranmer himself doubted the wisdom of using Eng- 
lish " in certain mysteries," and he agreed with Tun- 
stall's proposal that Latin should be retained in the 
mass, but that certain prayers in English might be 
added to instruct and stir the popular devotion. 
One other cautious change was tacitly admitted 
under the guise of a warning to Reformers ; those 
who were content with the general confession 
were required not to be offended with others who 
practised also auricular and secret confession to the 
priest.* This Order of Communion was printed on 
the 8th of March, 1548, and issued on the 15th with 
an injunction that it should be adopted by Easter fol- 
lowing. Its object, like that of all the early measures 
of Edward's reign, was to open the door to the New 
Learning without shutting it in the face of the Old, 



* The Act of Six Articles, which insisted upon auricular confession, 
bad of gourse already been repealed. 




Copyright Photo., Walker & Cockerell. 
BSSHOP HUGH LATIMER„ 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 207 

and to carry the whole nation as far as possible 
slowly and cautiously along the path of Reform. 

The same spirit of compromise pervaded the vari- 
ous Proclamations issued during the spring of 1548. 
On the i6th of January, for instance, a Proclamation 
appeared lamenting the lax observance of Lent and 
enjoining respect for the old fast-days ; but a few 
days later the Council resolved to discountenance 
the burning of candles on Candlemas Day, the use 
of ashes on Ash Wednesday and of palms on Palm 
Sunday, as well as creeping to the Cross on Good 
Friday, and the taking of holy bread and holy water, 
changes to which Cranmer had nearly obtained the 
consent of Henry VIII. But again, on the 6th of 
February, a Proclamation censured innovations begun 
by parish priests on their own authority, while on 
the nth the Council ordered the removal of all 
images, under the impression that this drastic meas- 
ure would cause less disturbance than the perpetual 
contention as to whether they were abused or not. 

But the mind of the Government^-which, speak- 
ing generally of religious matters at this time, means 
that of Cranmer and the Protector — was not so am- 
biguous as, in the vain hope of peace and quietness, 
it was made to appear. It was with the connivance 
of these two that Latimer, who since his release by 
Henry's death had been living with Cranmer at 
Lambeth, began a course of sermons at St. Paul's 
Cross in January, 1548; in them he lashed not 
merely the "unpreaching prelate" of the Old, but 
the greedy landlord of the New Learning, against 
whom the Protector was about to launch his ill-fated 



2o8 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

but generous crusade. On 12 May at Westminster 
the whole communion service was said in English ; 
and the fact that the sermon was preached by a 
royal chaplain suggests that the alteration was not 
viewed with disfavour in government circles. It is 
possible, too, that in the Royal Chapel a form of 
service something like that afterwards enforced by 
the first Act of Uniformity was in use as early as 
August, 1548. There is, however, no evidence to 
prove that the simultaneous exclusion of Latin from 
the services at St. Paul's and the cessation of private 
masses there and in various London parishes was 
due to any other influence than the zeal of the 
Protestant Dean V and popular pressure. Protestant 
principles were in fact making rapid strides, and a 
Government which sympathised with the Reforma- 
tion could hardly be expected to set its face like 
adamant against all change, still less to check it by 
the methods of Henry VIIL, when those methods 
had been made illegal by Parliament. A caution 
was, however, issued in May to the licensed preach- 
ers to restrain them from advocating further innova- 
tions and to exhort them to rebuke the innovators. 

This popular agitation encouraged or compelled 
the Government to meditate further projects. Somer- 
set was probably more concerned to keep the peace 
than to attempt the perfection of religious truth ; 
and the complaint of a reformer that the Protector 
preferred watching the builders at Somerset House 
to hearing sermons should do something to relieve 



VVjUiam Ma.y ; see Diet. JVat. Biogr. , xxxvji. , 146, 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 209 

his memory of the charge of religious intemperance 
which it has long unjustly borne. Cranmer had no 
such worldly distractions; his mind was advanc- 
ing with the times, and in the great controversy 
about the Eucharist which was now tending to over- 
shadow all other religious questions he had not only 
gone as far as Luther, but was beginning to look in 
the direction of Zwingli. In this he reflected the 
temper of a large and growing body of English Re- 
formers, and the year 1 548 saw a great outburst of 
Protestant theology. Books poured from the press' 
controverting and ridiculing the Catholic doctrine 
of the mass, some of them respectable arguments, 
but most appeals to the crowd couched in coarse 
and ribald terms. There was a repetition of the fer- 
ment which pervaded Germany from 1521 to 1525'; 
and while Protestant tracts multiplied, scarcely a 
voice was raised on the Catholic side.' Cranmer 
himself joined in the fray by publishing an English 
translation of the Lutheran Catechism of Justus 

' Between twenty and thirty such books against the mass are 
known to have appeared in England in 1548, and probably there 
were many more. 

* See the present writer in the Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii., 
chap. V. 

2 This disproportion has been explained on the theory that the 
Government rigidly controlled the press, encouraged the Protestant 
writings, and suppressed Catholic productions. But this was not 
the case ; the Government had given up the control of the press by 
the Act of 1547, and it was not till 13 August, 1549, that the Coun- 
cil, threatened by revolts in the East and in the West, ordered that 
no book should be printed without the licence of one of the Secreta- 
ries of State or of William Cecil {Acts P. C, 1547-15 50, p. 312). 
Moreover, the disproportion was just as great in Germany, where all 



2IO Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

Jonas, but this book struck dismay into the hearts 
of those Zwinglians who had begun to entertain 
hopes of the Archbishop's conversion. 

" This Thomas," wrote one to Zwingli's successor, 
Bullinger, ** has fallen into so heavy a slumber that we 
entertain but a very cold hope that he will be aroused 
even by your most learned letter. For lately he has 
published a catechism, in which he has not only ap- 
proved that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation * of 
the Papists in the holy supper of Our Saviour, but all the 
dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently well-grounded, 
perspicuous, and lucid." ' 

Another of Bullinger's correspondents excepted 
Cranmer and Latimer from the bulk of the learned 
and the nobility who shared Zwinglian views. " As 
to Canterbury," he continued, " he conducts himself 
in such a way . . . that the people do not think 
much of him and the nobility regard him as luke- 
warm. In other respects he is a kind and good- 
natured man." ' These complaints were merely due 
to the restraint which Cranmer placed upon himself 

the licensing powers were in the hands of Catholics. Gasquet and 
Bishop (pp. 122, et sgq.) give some specimens of these books. The 
tract yohn Bon and Master Parson ^ which they had not been able 
to find (p. 121, n.), is printed in the present writer's Tudor Tracts^ 
1903, pp. 159-169. 

* This, of course, is a mistake, but advanced Reformers, and Cran- 
mer himself at a later date, saw little difference between Transub- 
stantiation and the Real Presence. 

^^Original Letters ^ Parker Soc, pp. 380-381. 

3 Barth. Traheron to Bullinger, i August, 1548. {Original Letters, 
i., 380.) For Traheron see the present writer in Did. Nat, Biogr.^ 
Ivii., 14S. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 211 

and to his reluctance to enunciate private opinions 
before he could adopt them in public practice. For 
in reality at least one phrase in his translation of the 
Catechism indicated a departure from the Lutheran 
creed ; and he implied in his answer to Gardiner, 
printed in 1551, that shortly before the publication 
of the Catechism he had abandoned " that error of 
the real presence." * 

This union of Cranmer with the forces of pop- 
ular enthusiasm and the more interested desires of 
the nobility made it very difficult for the Protec- 
tor to hold the balance even between Anglo-Catholic 
and Protestant. The pressure which he told Gardi- 
ner was being put upon him from both sides in 1547 
now grew very unequal, and it required some skill 
and some rigour to prevent dangerous friction be- 
tween the two parties. The Government was keenly 
alive to the disruptive effects which disputes over 
the Eucharist had produced on the Continent ; and 
although the English Constitution enjoyed better 
guarantees of stability than those of Germany or 
Switzerland, the fear of religious war was ever pre- 
sent to the minds of England's rulers in the sixteenth 
century. In 1548 feeling was so acute that disputes 
whether there should be mass or not led to blows 
being exchanged in St. Paul's and other London 
churches; and the French ambassador, probably 
with some exaggeration, declares that there were 
daily fights on the subject. If unity was to be pre- 
served, there must be some sort of uniformity ; and 



' Cranmer, Works^ i. , 374. 



212 Thomas Cranmer ti54ir-' 

pending the production of one uniform order, a com- 
promise and a standard which all should be per- 
suaded or compelled to observe, the Council imposed 
silence on the disputants, especially with regard to 
the doctrine of the mass/ 

Uniformity was the natural outcome of separation 
from Rome, for in an universal church there is more 
room for local option than in a national church, es- 
pecially when that national church was anxious to 
define the boundaries which marked it off from the 
Roman church on one hand and the various Pro- 
testant churches on the other. If there was to be 
anything national about the church it was scarcely 
permissible that one diocese or one parish should 
approximate to the Roman use, while the next dio- 
cese or parish might follow, that of Geneva, Wit- 
tenberg, or Zurich. There was more latitude in 
Germany, where a national system could not be said 
to exist either in religion or politics ; but the results 
of German diversity scarcely recommended its adop- 
tion elsewhere. And so the progress towards uni- 
formity began almost as soon as the connexion with 
Rome ceased. The Ten Articles of 1536 and the 
Six of 1539 were both assertions of the right, and in- 
dications of the intention of England to select her 
own formularies of faith and make them uniform. 
So, too, in 1543, Convocation had recommended the 
uniform adoption of the Sarum Use throughout the 



^ On 23 September even licensed preachers were prohibited for the 
time from preaching anything except the Homilies. Gardiner's fail- 
ure to observe silence on the mass was one of the causes of his 
imprisonment in the Tower, 30 June, 1548. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 213 

province of Canterbury ; and the task of compiling a 
Book of Common Prayer out of the various service- 
books in use had occupied much of Crahmer's time 
during the later years of Henry VIII. There was 
need of reform as well as of uniformity ; the latter 
was felt mainly in England, but the defects of the 
current service-books were patent to Roman Catho- 
lics, and the reformed Breviary which Cardinal 
Quignon dedicated to Paul III. in 1535 anticipated 
not a few of the changes effected by the first English 
Book of Common Prayer.* 

The Breviary of Cardinal Quignon and the Sarum 
Use were the basis of two schemes of Office * 
drawn up by Cranmer probably between 1543 — 
when Convocation or the King or both ordered 
a revision of the service-books, — and 1547, when 
Convocation demanded the production of the re- 
sults of the labours of those who had been engaged 
in this task. These two schemes mark two suc- 
cessive stages in the evolution of the First Book of 



' The similarities between Quignon's work and the Preface to the 
First Book of Common Prayer were originally pointed out by the 
Rev. (Sir) William Palmer (i 803-1 885) in his Origines Liturgicce, 
published in 1832. Quignon was a Spanish Franciscan and a friend 
and confidant of Clement VII. and Paul III.; many references to 
him will be found in the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII. ^ and in 
the Calendar of Spanish State Papers. 

'The MS. is in the British Museum {Royal MS., 7, B. iv.) ; it has 
been printed and exhaustively discussed in Gasquet and Bishop's 
Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer, 1890, the most valua- 
ble of all works on the subject, to which reference should be made 
for an account of the difference in detail between the various docu- 
ments. The MS. is mainly in the hand of the Archbishop's secre- 
tary, Ralph Morice, and the corrections are in Cranmer's own. 



214 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

Common Prayer. The first has been described as 
"Sarum material worked up under Quignon influ- 
ence," while, the latter " comes nearer to the form of 
morning and evening prayer in the first printed 
Prayer Book of Edward VI." The chief feature of 
interest about the second scheme is that it marks 
the transition from the ancient arrangement of the 
Office to the order adopted in 1549. Compline and 
the four Hours " prime, terce, sext, and none " were 
omitted altogether, and it is possible that upon this 
draft was modelled the form of service, from which 
Compline was omitted, used in the Chapel Royal in 
1548, and recommended by Somerset in a letter 
of September the 4th to the Vice-Chancellor of 
Cambridge as a model for use in College chapels. 

However that may be, there was a considerable 
step between the second of Cranmer's draft schemes 
and Edward VI. *s First Book of Common Prayer. 
The petition of Convocation in 1547 for the produc- 
tion of the schemes was not conceded, and it was not 
till September, 1548, that the final stage in the evolu- 
tion of the Book of Common Prayer was commenced. 
The work is usually supposed to have been done by 
a body of Bishops * called the " Windsor Commis- 
sion," and their names have been variously given 
by different historians, who in this connexion gener- 



*The "other divines" who are said to have existed are not as a 
rule mentioned in contemporary references which speak only of 
"bishops"; see Gasquet and Bishop, p. 178. But on the other 
hand, Somerset in his letter to Cardinal Pole writes " as well bishops 
as other equally and indifferently chosen of judgment." (Pocock, 
Troubles Connected with the First Book of Common Prayer^ p. x.) 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 215 

ally confuse the Order of Communion with the First 
Book of Common Prayer. But these lists have not 
been traced to any authentic source, and a thorough 
search has failed to reveal any trace of a formal com- 
mission. It is, however, fairly certain that some 
Bishops did assemble first at Windsor and then at 
Chertsey Abbey in September and October, 1548, 
and deliberate upon the controversies raging with so 
much fury ; and we have their own assertion for the 
fact that a draft Book of Common Prayer was sub- 
mitted for their approval. It does not appear, how- 
ever, that they had much share in drawing up this 
document, and one of the Catholic Bishops subse- 
quently complained in the House of Lords that the 
book had been materially altered since he had sub- 
scribed to it. The only prelate who refused his as- 
sent was Bishop Day of Chichester, but the Catholics 
subscribed mainly for the sake of unity and not be- 
cause they agreed with all its particulars. Their 
subscriptions were much like the " nolens voloj' by 
which Tiptoft' once expressed his concurrence in an 
Ordinance of the Privy Council. 

The Book, in fact, was, in the form in which it 
came before Parliament, to all intents and purposes 
the work of Cranmer. Not only was the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation — in which Cranmer had ceased to 
believe ten years before — excluded, but that of the 
Real Presence was implicitly rejected. The elevation 
and adoration of the Sacrament were left out, the 



1 John, Baron Tiptoft (1375 ?-i443). See the present writer in 
Diet. Nat. Biogr., Ivi., 409-411, and Nicolas, Proceedings of the 
Privy Council, vol. ii., Pref., p. liv. 



2i6 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

word oblation was studiously avoided, and Bonner 
asserted that there was " heresy in the book " be- 
cause the elements were still described as bread and 
wine after the completion of those ceremonies which 
implied to a Catholic their transubstantiation. The 
commendations of the Zwinglian party confirmed the 
criticisms of the Catholics. " You must know," wrote 
Traheron to Bullinger, " that Latimer has come over 
to our opinion respecting the true doctrine of the Eu- 
charist, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
and the other bishops, who heretofore seemed to be 
Lutherans." * " Even that Thomas [Cranmer] him- 
self," remarks another correspondent, " by the good- 
ness of God and the instrumentality of that most 
upright and judicious man, master John k Lasco, is 
in a great measure recovered from his dangerous 
lethargy." ^ 

Such were Cranmer's views in the autumn of 
1548, but they are not an accurate indication of the 
doctrine* of the First Book of Common Prayer, for 
the Archbishop's scheme was subjected to criticism 
in both Houses of Parliament and emerged from 
the ordeal a compromise between the two parties. 

* Original Letters^ p. 322 ; this letter is dated 28 September, and 
the editor adds *' 1548," but the correctness of this I doubt. The 
reference to "painful events" applies better to 1549 than to 1548. 

^ Ibid.y p. 383. Cranmer himself attributed his change of view to 
Ridley and not to John k Lasco, for whom see Did. Nat. Biogr., 
and Hermann Dalton's Lasciana and Life of ^ Lasco. Still there is 
probably some truth in the above statement, as k Lasco passed the 
winter of 1548-49 with Cranmer at Lambeth. 

^This doctrine is only a matter of inference ; the Book of Common 
Prayer is a manual of devotion, not of doctrine, and nice definitions 
of dogma agree ill with the devotional spirit. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 217 

In this work of modification Convocation seems to 
have had no hand ' ; but both Houses of Parliament 
asserted a voice in the matter. The Commons were 
urged by Traheron ^ to tolerate " no ambiguity in 
the reformation of the Lord's Supper ; but it was not 
in his power to bring over his old fellow-citizens to 
his views." Apparently in this instance the conserv- 
ative feeling of the Lower House resisted the more 
radical spirit of the Lords, for there Cranmer and 
Ridley, we are told by Traheron, argued so well on 
behalf of the Zwinglian view that *' truth never 
obtained a more brilliant victory. I perceive that 
it is all over with Lutheranism, now that those who 
were considered its principal and almost only sup- 
porters have altogether come over to our side."* 

" The palm," echoes Peter Martyr to Bucer, ** rests 
with our friends, but especially with the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, whom they till now were wont to traduce as 
a man ignorant of theology, and as being conversant 
only with matters of government ; but now, believe me, 
he has shown himself so mighty a theologian against 
them as they would rather not have proof of, and they 



* A whole literature has grown up round this disputed and intricate 
point ; the scanty evidence we have is contradictory. See Joyce, 
Acts of the Church ; Dixon, History^ iii., 5, et seq. ; Gasquet and 
Bishop, chap. x. 

• How Traheron got elected is not revealed by the Official Return 
of M. P.'s, but his friend Hilles expressly states that he was one of 
the burgesses. {Original Letters, i., 266.) 

^ Orig. Letters, i., 323. Traheron probably heard the debate in 
the Lords, being no doubt one of the M. P.'s who, according to 
Peter Martyr, went up every day to hear the debate in the House of 
Lords. Ibid.^ ii., 469. 



2i8 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 

are compelled, against their inclination, to acknowledge 
his learning and power and dexterity in debate. Tran- 
substantiation, I think, is now exploded, and the diffi- 
culty respecting the presence is at this time the most 
prominent point of dispute ; but the parties engage with 
so much vehemence and energy as to occasion very 
great doubt as to the result ; for the victory has hitherto 
been fluctuating between them." * 

A brief report' of this great debate has cbme 
down to us, and from this authentic record we learn 
the gist of Cranmer's views. "Our faith," he de- 
clared, " is not to believe Him to be in bread and 
wine, but that he is in heaven ; this is proved by 
Scripture and Doctors till the Bishop of Rome's 
usurped power came in." Later on in the debate 
he said, " I believe that Christ is eaten with the 
heart. The eating with our mouth cannot give us 
life, for then should a sinner have life. Only good 
men can eat Christ's body ; and when the evil eateth 
the Sacrament, bread and wine, he neither hath 
Christ's body nor eateth it." That is to say, the 
presence in the Eucharist was a spiritual presence 
conditioned by the faith of the recipient, Ridley 
was somewhat more guarded in his admissions ; the 
bread, he said, remained bread after consecration, 
"still the bread of communion is not mere bread, 
but bread united to the divinity." The common 
bread, he explained, is made a divine influence. 



* Original Letters, ii., 469-470. 

* Extant in British Museum -^tyflf/J/^"., 17, B. xxxix., and printed 
in Gasquet and Bishop, pp. 397-443 ; for a further exposition of 
Cranmer's views see the following chapter. 




PIETRO VERMIQLI, COMMONLY KNOWN AS PETER MARTYR. 

•FROM THE PAINTING NOW IN CHAPTER-HOUSE ftOOM AT CHRISTCHURCH , OXFORD. BY PERMISSION 

OF THE DEAN AND FELLOWS. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 219 

Such were the answers which Cranmer gave to the 
three questions propounded in the debate : whether 
there was a real presence in the sacrament, whether 
evil men received **that body,'* and whether there 
was transubstantiation. In each case his reply was 
in the negative. In the last two questions he carried 
the majority with him, but, as Peter Martyr indi- 
cates, the great point at issue was the real presence, 
and in regard to that the result did not correspond 
with Traheron's triumphant paean over the rout of 
the Lutherans. The debate described above took 
place on 14-17 December, 1548, but the Act of Uni- 
formity imposing the First Book of Common Prayer 
did not pass the House of Lords till four weeks later.* 
The interval was used to modify Cranmer's draft of 
the Book of Common Prayer so as to secure a ma- 
jority of episcopal votes in its favour. This was 
regarded as of much importance by the Protector, 
and his success enabled the Government to maintain 
in its subsequent disputes with Bonner and the Prin- 
cess Mary that the measure had received the sanc- 
tion of the Church. A majority of prelates would 
not, however, have voted for the doctrine laid down 
by Cranmer, and various alterations were introduced 
to modify Catholic hostility. The most important, 
perhaps, was the substitution of the phrases *' sacra- 
ment of the body " and " sacrament of the blood " 



' That is, on 21 January, 1549 ; it did not receive the royal assent 
until 14 March, 1549; on this much-disputed date see the present 
writer in English Historical Review, xvi., 376-379 and Canon Mac- 
coil's preface to the 10th edition of his Reformation Settlement 
(1902). 



220 Thomas Cranmer [1547^ 

for ** bread " and " wine ** in the last rubric of the 
communion ; and the change was doubtless designed 
to meet Bonner's complaint that the use of the 
words " bread " and ** wine " in this conjunction was 
heresy. 

In its final form the First Book of Common Prayer 
was a blow to the extreme Reformers. " The fool- 
ish Bishops," wrote Traheron to Bullinger, " have 
made a marvellous recantation." * Hooper described 
the Book as " very defective and of doubtful con- 
struction and in some respects indeed manifestly im- 
pious."' Dryander remarked that with regard to 
the Lord's Supper ** the book speaks very obscurely, 
and however you may try to explain it with candour, 
you cannot avoid great absurdity. The reason is 
that the bishops could not for a long time agree 
among themselves respecting this article." Some 
concessions, wrote Bucer and Fagius, " have been 
made both to a respect for antiquity and to the in- 
firmity of the present age " ; and they instanced the 
vestments enjoined for the celebration of the Euchar- 
ist, the use of candles and the chrism, and the com- 
memoration of the dead. The Book was, in fact, 
neither Roman nor Zwinglian ; still less was it 
Calvinistic, and for this reason mainly it has been 
described as Lutheran. Richard Hilles, a well-in- 
formed layman, compared the communion service 
with that adopted in the Niirnberg churches and 
in some of the churches of Saxony. But the resem- 
blance was due not so much to conscious imitation 



* Original Letters, i., 323. 

* JHd., pp. 232-3, 266, 350-1, 565. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 221 

as to the common conservatism which characterised 
the Lutheran and Anglican service-books, and led 
to the retention in them of many Catholic usages 
which Reformed churches in Europe rejected. The 
Anglican was, in fact, the most conservative of all 
the liturgies produced by the Reformation. The 
Sarum Use was its basis, but Cranmer's extensive 
acquaintance with contemporary liturgies enabled 
him to select the best from an enormous range of 
material. His indebtedness to the Breviary of Car- 
dinal Quignon has already been mentioned ; with all 
the more important Lutheran service-books he was 
familiar; and his correspondence with his wife's 
uncle, Osiander, and with Zwinglian divines such as 
J. de Watt (Vadianus) kept him in touch with the 
trend of every variety of continental opinion. Per- 
haps the clearest traces of foreign influence may be 
found in the similarities between the Baptismal Office 
of the First Book of Common Prayer and the Pia 
Consultation compiled by Bucer and Melanchthon and 
published under the authority of Hermann von Wied, 
the reforming Archbishop of Cologne, in 1543. But 
Cranmer also laid under contribution the liturgies 
of the Greek Church, numerous editions of which 
had been printed before 1548, and possibly of the 
Mozarabic or ancient rite of Spain. * 

^ The two similarities alleged between the English Book of 1549 
and the Mozarabic Use are in the words of institution of the sacra- 
ment and the form of blessing the font. The first appears rather to 
have been derived from a contemporary liturgy ; and Gasquet and 
Bishop (p. 185 n.), while admitting " that the form must have been 
derived either directly or indirectly from the Spanish Liturgy" 
point QwX that printed copies of this liturgy were scarcely accessibly 



222 Thomas Cranmer [.547^ 

Quite apart from conflicting views in the English 
Church and Parliament which made compromise es- 
sential, it was not likely that a liturgy derived from 
such various sources would embody or emphasise 
one clear, definite, dogmatic system ; nor is a liturgy 
the proper vehicle for the assertion of dogma. The 
value of the English Book of Common Prayer is not 
to be compared with that of the Augsburg Confes- 
sion or the Longer and Shorter Catechisms : it was 
different in kind, but not less in degree. The Prayer 
Book is not a creed nor a battle-cry, and it provokes 
the spirit of devotion rather than that of de- 
bate; it is religion and not theology. To it the 
Anglican Church owes the hold she retains on the 
English people. They are not attracted merely by 
the fact that the Church is established by law; it 
may be doubted whether her catholicity allures the 
bulk of the laity, and assuredly her standard of 
preaching is not the force which keeps men from 
joining other communions. But the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer is unique, a Ktrjpia es dsu Amid the 



in 1549. But they have already suggested that similarities might be 
derived from personal intercourse, and here is perhaps the key of the 
puzzle. A reformer, known as Dryander or Duchesne, but whose 
real name was Francis Enzinas, was bom at Burgos in 1515; he 
would certainly be familiar with the Mozarabic Use. In .1548 he 
came to England and was entertained by Cranmer for some time at 
Lambeth until he received an appointment at Cambridge. From 
him the Archbishop probably derived his knowledge of this usage. 
(See Original Letters^ i., 348 n. ; ii., 535 ; Cooper, Athena Cantabr.). 
On the general question the words of the liturgist Daniel may be 
quoted : " Perpauca inde {i, ^., ex iEgjrptiis, Africanis, Gallicanis, 
Mozarabis) desumpta sunt, plurima ex Romanis liturgis, singula ex 
Reformatis" — Codex Litur^, EccU Univ.^vx.^ 349. 



1549] First Book of Common Prayer 223 

fierce contentions of the churches it gave the Church 
of England unity, strength, and a way to the hearts 
of men such as no other Church could boast. That 
the English Church survived was due in no small 
measure to the exquisite charm of her liturgy ; and 
that was the work of Cranmer. He borrowed and 
learnt and adapted from various sources, but what- 
ever he touched he adorned. Under his hands the 
rudest and simplest of prayers assumed a perfection 
of form and expression, and grew into one of the 
finest monuments of sacred literary art. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND CONTROVERSIES 

PURE theology occupies a smaller space in Cran- 
mer'slife than in that of other great Reformers, 
such as Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin ; he founded no 
church and gave his name to no doctrinal system. 
His work was rather to reform a church, and he 
laboured under conditions unlike those which deter- 
mined the thoughts and actions of his contemporaries 
in Europe. No one will dispute the vast importance 
of the religious issues which agitated civilisation in 
the sixteenth century, but it is impossible to under- 
stand the history of that epoch if it is treated 
from an exclusively theological point of view. Reli- 
gious forces are potent indeed, but it is doubtful 
whether religion has fashioned nationality so much 
as nationality has moulded religion. If religion had 
been the one supreme test, it would have divided 
Europe into Catholic and Protestant parties, and 
not into Catholic and Protestant nations. Religion, 
in fact, was not so dominant in the sixteenth as it 
had been in the twelfth century, and the age w^s 
really one of secularisation. There was no Crusade, 
nor in any single instance was there an effective coali- 

924 



Theological Views 225 

tion of Catholic or of Protestant powers for any 
object whatever; and when wars of religion did 
come in the seventeenth century, it was France a 
Catholic power, which caused the Protestant victory. 
Political conditions exercised incalculable influence 
over the results of the religious movement ; Protest- 
antism broke in vain against the national temper of 
Spain, and it was national feeling in Germany which 
gave effect to Luther's protest. Political conditions, 
too, differentiated the Reformation in England from 
that in Germany and in Switzerland. Zwinglianism 
and Calvinism are republican because the Swiss 
cantons were republics ; Lutheranism became a ter- 
ritorial religion because territorialism was the effect- 
ive political principle then existent in Germany. 
The Church in England became the Church of Eng- 
land because a strong national monarchy grasped the 
sceptre which was slipping from the hands of the 
Papal hierarchy. 

The predominance of the State in England was 
unfavourable to the influence of the Church and to 
the free development of religious speculation, while 
the loose and impotent political organisation of 
Switzerland and Germany stimulated independent 
thought. There the seat of authority was, if not 
empty, poorly filled ; and in the early years of 
the Reformation, at least, its direction fell into 
the hands of religious leaders. Hence Luther and 
Zwingli were able to develop a theology which 
would soon have been checked in England. Their 
rulers were weak and not theologians. Henry VIIL 
Wc^s strong and a theologian with emphatic views of 



226 Thomas Cranmer 



his own. In England a reformation could only be 
effected by the State and through the instrumentality 
of an Archbishop, who was not merely Primate of the 
Church but constitutionally the first adviser of the 
Crown ; a position which, while it conferred honour 
and dignity, also imposed restraints. It not only 
bounded his liberty of action, but affected his point 
of view. To Luther truth could be the only consid- 
eration; Cranmer had also to consider how truth 
could be translated into action and imposed on a 
doubting people ; to him compromise was essential, 
for he was a statesman as well as a theologian; 
he lived and moved in a practical sphere in which 
ideals and abstractions could play but a limited 
part. 

Another difference arises from this process of 
reformation by government instrumentality. Lu- 
ther's Ninety-five Theses were his own individual 
act ; the Confession of Augsburg was the work of Me- 
lanchthon ; but the Ten and the Forty-two Articles, 
the First and Second Books of Common Prayer, 
were the acts of a government and not the manifes- 
toes of an individual or even of a party. In these 
documents Cranmer's voice sounded the dominant 
note, but all in varying degrees are of composite 
authorship and represent the working of several 
minds. Like the policy of modern cabinets, they 
may not embody any one man's ideal, and caution 
should be observed in any attempt to deduce there- 
from the nature of private convictions. Particularly 
is this the case when the expressions of this com- 
posite and collective 'opinion are directed primarily 




Theological Views 227 

towards the reformation of abuses and regulation 
of worship, and not towards the definition of 
dogma. Had the Reformation in England been 
guided by Calvin or Luther, or by a series of 
ecclesiastical councils, it might have produced 
religious war, but would probably have propagated 
a more definite theological system. A layman is 
not necessarily a bad theologian, but a statesman 
must economise truth and compound with the forces 
of darkness. 

Circumstances thus turned Cranmer away from 
abstract speculation, and on its speculative and 
philosophical side his theology is not distinctive. 
Metaphysics lay quite beyond his mental horizon ; 
and he has little or nothing to say on the tremen- 
dous issues involved in the relations between the 
will of man and the will of God. Probably he 
thought these vast realms a trackless waste on which 
it would be rash to enter. Caution was a marked 
characteristic of Cranmer's typically English mind; 
although it was open to many influences, no single 
idea took exclusive possession ; truth shone into it 
through various media, and the light it received 
was a blend less clear but more soft than the rays 
which pierced the brain of Luther or Calvin. The 
same is true of Anglican doctrine ; the strict alliance 
of Church and State was by no means an unmixed 
blessing, but it acted as some protection from the 
fierce glare of some theological dogmas ; and when 
Lutheran, Zwinglian, and, lastly, Calvinistic rays 
did break in upon the English Church they were 
so combined and modified that a sort of spectrum 



228 Thomas Cranmer 

analysis is required to distinguish them one from 
another. And if the light was moderate, the heat 
was also less ; for the passion which loosed England 
from Rome was a political sentiment rather than a 
religious enthusiasm like that aroused by Predes- 
tination or Justification by Faith ; and Cranmer's 
theology by itself would not have generated suffi- 
cient force to drive the engine of Reform. 

Cranmer himself appears to have reached his con- 
victions by the intellectual path of reason rather 
than through the sensational " experiences " which 
led to Luther's revolt. His repugnance to the old 
religious system did not, it would seem, arise from 
its failure to satisfy the spiritual needs of a clamant 
conscience, but from the dissonance between the 
Scriptures and the Papacy. It was the study of the 
Scriptures and not the wrestling of the spirit that 
first aroused Cranmer's doubts. To the Scriptures 
he had devoted his time from his early days at Cam- 
bridge, and throughout his life their influence over 
his mind was ever-increasing. His career was a 
troubled but constant journeying away from the 
papal towards the evangelical position ; and the de- 
crees of Popes and of General Councils, and even 
the words of the Fathers, gradually receded into the 
distance. Yet Cranmer never reached the extreme 
of Zwinglianism. He did not condemn all that was 
not in the Bible, for an Archbishop could scarcely 
do that with consistency ; and he had little patience 
with those who objected to kneeling because it was 
not enjoined in the Scriptures. So, too, he always 
attached a great, though lessening, value to the 



Theological Views 229 

Fathers as interpreters of the words of Christ and 
of the Apostles. 

The Bible was Cranmer's Ark of the Covenant, 
and his lack of the speculative instinct saved him 
from the temptation to lay impious hands upon it. 
He could make effective use of the contradictions 
between the various decrees of the Popes; but he 
seems to have been happily blind to the difficulties 
presented by the text of the Scriptures. In this re- 
spect he was less acute or less frank than Luther, 
who admitted the discrepancies between the Synop- 
tists and the Gospel of St. John, and between Ste- 
phen*s account of Jewish history and that recorded 
in the Old Testament.* Still farther was Cranmer 
from the mental attitude of Carlstadt, who doubted 
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and be- 
lieved that the original form of the Gospels had not 
been preserved intact.' His interest in textual criti- 
cism of the Scriptures was conditioned by the sup- 
port which it gave to attacks on the Papacy. This 
was the natural position for a practical man engaged 
in a life-and-death struggle ; it is scarcely the busi- 
ness of such an one to exhibit the defects in the 
weapon with which he defended himself and attacked 
his enemies ; and Cranmer was too busy wielding 
the sword of the Gospel to spend much time in 
displaying its flaws. 

The application of the Scriptural test to the prob- 
lems of the time was with Cranmer a slow and 



' H. E. Jacobs, Luther, p. 351. 

' For Andrew Bodenstein, or Carlstadt, see the present writer in 
Cambridge Modern. History, ii., 165. 



230 Thomas Cranmef 

gradual development ; but it was none the less an 
independent process^ anterior to and not consequent 
upon the action of the State. For years before the 
divorce of Catherine of Aragon he had prayed for 
the abolition of the papal jurisdiction ; and before the 
Government had taken any action with regard to 
the doctrine or the practice of the Church, his 
faith in papal theology had gone the way of 
his respect for papal law. Whether his visit to 
Rome in 1530 produced as deep an impression as 
Luther's did, we do not know ; but at least it did 
nothing to alter the tendencies of his mind. It is 
obvious that in 1532 he no longer believed in com- 
pulsory celibacy for the clergy ; and his intercourse 
with the Lutheran divines during his embassy to 
Germany in that year had probably confirmed his 
doubts of other orthodox views. As soon as he be- 
came Archbishop he began to agitate for an author- 
ised version of the Scriptures in English, and the 
Ten Articles of 1536 were evidence of the distance 
he had already travelled from later Catholic doc- 
trine. He had in 1537 already rejected the abuses 
of " Purgatory, pilgrimages, praying to saints, images, 
holy bread, holy water, holy days, merits, works, 
ceremony, and such other. " * 

Of these changes the most important was the 
denial of Purgatory, for it was belief in its existence 
and in the power of the clergy to redeem men's 
souls from its pains that gave the Roman Church its 
hold over the popular mind. The claim was not 
capable of practical or ocular refutation; and the 

* Cranmer, IVoris, ii., 351, 



Theological Views 531 

fear that, however successfully the priest might be 
restrained in this world, he might have the last 
word in the other, was, next to the impression that 
the priest was endowed with the miraculous power 
of " making God," the greatest obstacle in the path 
of the Reformation. Hence the importance of Lu- 
ther's dogma of Justification by Faith, which made 
priestly intercession a work of supererogation ; and 
hence that dogma was so far accepted by the Eng- 
lish Church as to undermine the belief in Purgatory. 
Cranmer himself went farther in this direction than 
most English Reformers, and the views he expressed 
in 1547 in his Homily of Salvation^ are scarcely dis- 
tinguishable from Luther's own ; " faith," he wrote, 
** doth not exclude repentance, hope, love, dread, 
and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every 
man that is justified, but it excludeth them from the 
office of justifying. . . . Nor that faith also doth 
not exclude the justice of good works, necessarily 
to be done afterward of duty towards God . . . 
but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them 
to this intent, to be made good by doing of them." 
Cranmer's attitude towards other theological 
questions (except the Eucharist) may best be indi- 
cated by summarising his replies to the series of 
interrogations put to the bishops by Henry VI H. 
about 1 541.' He did not materially vary from the 



' This homily is printed in Works, ii., 128-134 \ Cranmer was 
almost certainly its author. His *' Notes on Justification," consist- 
ing of passages from the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Schoolmen, 
are printed in Works, ii., 203-21 1, and in Jenkyns, ii., 121 et sqq. 

* Buraet, iv., 443-496. 



232 Thomas Cranmer 

position he then held, and his answers illustrate not 
only the difference between him and the Roman 
Catholics, but that between him and both High 
and Free churchmen of to-day. With regard to the 
nature, number, and authority of the sacraments he 
said that the Scriptures " sheweth not what a sacra- 
ment is," nor how many sacraments there were; 
while the " ancient doctors " described a sacrament 
as sacrcB rei signuffty visibile verbunty symbolunt^ atque 
pactiOy qud sumus constricti, and applied the name 
to many more than the orthodox seven ; he knew 
no reason why the word should be attributed to the 
seven only, for that number of seven was ** no doctrine 
of Scripture, nor of the old authors." Questioned 
whether the thing was there, though the name was 
absent, he replied that Baptism and the Eucharist 
were the only two things in Scripture which could 
be regarded as sacraments ; penance was in Script- 
ure "a pure conversion of a sinner in heart and 
mind," and there was no mention of its conventional 
tripartite division into contrition, confession, and 
satisfaction ; matrimony, confirmation, and ex- 
treme unction were not sacraments ; nor was there 
any allusion in Scripture to ** confirmation with 
chrism, without which it is counted no sacrament." 
The interrogations then pass on to the debatable 
ground of the ecclesiastical power of princes. Was 
it for lack of commission from a Christian king that 
the Apostles took upon them to make bishops? or 
had they authority given of God ? Cranmer drew 
up a long reply. All Christian princes, he said, 
have committed to them immediately of God the 



Theological Views 233 

whole cure of all their subjects, as well concerning 
the administration of God's Word for the cure of the 
soul as concerning the ministration of things political 
and civil governance/ So under them they have both 
civil and ecclesiastical ministers, who are appointed 
by their laws and orders. In the admission of many 
of these officers divers comely ceremonies and solem- 
nities were used, but they were not necessary, and 
their omission would not invalidate the appointment ; 
nor was there any more divine promise of grace to 
be given "in the committing of the ecclesiastical 
office " than in that of the civil office. It was the 
lack of authority from a Christian king that com- 
pelled the Apostles to appoint ministers of God's 
Word. 

To further questions Cranmer answered that in 
the beginning there was no distinction between 
priest and bjshop, and that while a bishop might 
make priests, so might princes and governors, " and 
the people also by their election." " In the New 
Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or 
Priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture, for 
election or appointing thereto is sufficient " ; a 
Christian prince was also bound, in case ecclesiastics 
failed, to teach and preach the Word of God and to 
make and constitute priests. A man was not bound 
by Scripture " to confess his secret deadly sins to a 

' These views appeared to be derived from Marsiglio of Padua 
who anticipated by two centuries the Tudor theory of Church and 
State {cf. Dunning, Ancient and Mediceval Political Theory^ pp. 
242-3). Marsiglio's Defensor Pads was printed in England in 1536, 
with Cromwell's approbation (see the present writer in D, N. B.^ 
s. V. "Marshall, William," xxxvi,, 250). 



234 Thomas Cranmer 

priest"; nor did Scripture command or forbid a 
bishop or priest to excommunicate ; such powers 
depended entirely upon the laws of the country 
where he lived. 

Many of these points are of merely antiquarian or 
academic interest, and their importance is slight 
compared with that of Cranmer's views on the Eu- 
charist. The doctrine of Transubstantiation he had 
abandoned early, though the exact date of the change 
cannot be ascertained. In 1538 he wrote to Crom- 
weir: 

" As concerning Adam Damplip of Calais, he utterly 
denieth that ever he taught or said that the very body 
and blood of Christ was not presently in the sacrament 
of the altar, and confesseth the same to be there really; 
but he saith that the controversy between him and the 
prior was because he confuted the opinion of transub- 
stantiation, and therein I think he taught but the truth.' 

But he was yet far from the Zwinglian position ; 

" for," he wrote in 1537 ' to the Zwinglian J. de Watt, 
" unless I see strohger evidence brought forward than I 
have yet been able to see, I desire neither to be the 
patron nor the approver of the opinion maintained by 
you. And I am plainly convinced . . . that the 
cause is not a good one." 

The doctrine of the Real Presence was, he thought, 
proved by *' evident and manifest passages of Script- 



Theological Views 235 

ures,'* and "handed down to us by the Fathers 
themselves and men of apostolical character from the 
very beginning of the Church " ; and " our gracious 
Lord would never have left his beloved spouse in 
such lamentable blindness for so long a period." 

The last was a two-edged argument for a Reformer 
to use, and the time came when Cranmer himself 
rejected the Real Presence in spite of the manifest 
passages in Scripture, the Fathers, and men of apos- 
tolical character. This development was, however, 
slow, and its history has been obscured by a remark 
of Cranmer*s during his examination before Bishop 
Brooks in 1555.* "You, master Cranmer," said Dr. 
Martin ' to him, " have taught in this high sacrament 
of the altar three contrary doctrines, and yet you 
protested in every one verbum Domini^ " Nay," 
replied Cranmer, " I taught but two contrary doc- 
trines " ; and his remark has been considered ' a de- 
cisive refutation of the idea that he had passed 
through a Lutheran phase in his transition from 
papal to Zwinglian doctrine. It is perhaps a little 
loose to identify the High Anglican doctrine of the 
Real Presence with the Lutheran dogma of Consub- 
stantiation ; but that Cranmer at one time believed 
in the Real Presence while he disbelieved in Tran- 



*Foxe, viii., 56. 

' Thomas Martyn, or Martin, was a zealous Roman Catholic civilian 
who took a prominent part in the proceedings against the Marian 
martyrs ; he was, however, unmolested in Elizabeth's reign, and 
was even given some legal work by the Government ; see D. N. B,^ 
xxxvi., 320. 

3 Wordsworth, Eccl. Biogr., iii., 550; cf. Jenkyns iv., 9$, an4 
Cwnmer, Works ^ ii., 3i§, 



236 Thomas Cranmer 

substantiation is certain. That is the only inference 
possible from his letters to Cromwell and Watt 
quoted above; and in the preface to his Answer to 
Dr, Richard Smith h^ wrote that he was "in that 
error of the Real Presence, as I was many years past 
in divers other errors, as of Transubstantiationy* 
thus clearly distinguishing between the two. His 
answer to Dr. Martin may have been misreported, 
or his memory may have deceived him ; but there 
is a third explanation. Proceeding to define the 
two "contrary doctrines** he had taught, he indi- 
cates " the Papists* doctrine *' as one, and the view 
he then held as the other. He had come to regard 
the Real Presence no less than Transubstantiation 
as " Papists* doctrine,*' and the same identification is 
made in the preface to his answer to Gardiner. 

Yet Cranmer would not have called the Real Pre- 
sence " Papists* doctrine *' at any time between 1538 
and 1548. He believed it himself throughout that 
decade, and assuredly he then was no papist. Down 
to the eve of the debate on the Sacrament in De- 
cember, 1 548, he was regarded by the Zwinglians as 
a lukewarm Lutheran, though nearly a year before 
he had described the mass as " a memory and repre- 
sentation,** * and the description of him as a Lutheran 
merely means that he was neither papist nor Zwing- 
lian. The means of Cranmer*s conversion have been 
already discussed ' ; the results were apparent .in the 
debate on the Sacrament and in Cranmer's contro- 
versies with Bishop Gardiner and with Dr. Richard 
Smith ; in these books he gives the fullest account 

* Burnet, v., 201, ' See above, p. 216, 



Theological Views 237 

of his belief on the question and of the reasons 
which led him to hold it. 

The First Book of Common Prayer had embodied 
a compromise on the Eucharist between the views of 
Cranmer and those of the Catholic bishops. The 
phraseology employed was capable of a Catholic and 
of a Protestant interpretation, and both sides asserted 
that theirs was the only true gloss. But the political 
events of 1 549 had substituted an agg^ressive for an 
accommodating government, and it was with the 
good wishes if not at the instigation of the ruling 
Protestants that Cranmer set to work to prove that 
the Protestant view was correct. His book was en- 
titled A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine 
of the Sacrament y and it was published in 1550.* 
In it Cranmer took occasion to impugn some as- 
sertions made by the Bishop of Winchester in his 
sermon before the King on 30 June, 1548, and 
Gardiner, although he was now in prison, found 
means to take up the cudgels in his own defence. 
His book was entitled An Explication and Assertion 
of the True Catholic Faith touching the most blessed 
Sacrament of the Altar with Confutation of a book 
Written against the Same, Gardiner affected to 
believe that the Defence^ although published un- 
der Cranmer*s name, was not by him because it was 
inconsistent with the views which the Archbishop 



* The origin of his book is also attributed to the publication of 
Gardiner's Detection oftheDeviVs Sophistry, a treatise against Protest- 
ant views of the sacrament, but this had been published four years 
before in 1546. A Latin version of the Defence by Sir J. Cheke was 
published abroad in 1553. 



238 Thomas Cranmer 

had previously expressed on the subject. Another 
attack on Cranmer was made by Dr. Richard Smith, 
who is extravagantly described by Anthony Wood 
as " the greatest pillar of the Roman Catholic cause 
in his time." * The Archbishop replied to both in 
An AnszveTy published in 1551, in which are also in- 
corporated his original treatise and Gardiner's re- 
joinder. The whole volume is more than three 
times the size of this present one, so that it is im- 
possible to follow even in outline the threads of 
Cranmer's argument or to do more than give a brief 
indication of his conclusions. 

From the point of view of mental equipment 
Gardiner was scarcely a match for the Archbishop. 
He had no claim to Cranmer's learning, and although, 
as he acknowledges, his skill in debate had earned 
him the name of "sophister," he complains that 
Cranmer overcame him with sophistry ; and Sir 
Thomas More had once confessed himself staggered 
by the subtlety of Cranmer's arguments. Never- 
theless Gardiner had a great deal of rough common 
sense, and he presented the Catholic view with no lit- 
tle ability, and considerable moderation. " I know," 

* Smith had been first Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford; he 
repudiated his Romanism in 1547, but in 1549 had a famous argu- 
ment on the Sacrament at Oxford with Peter Martyr. He then 
fled to Louvain, whence his answer to Cranmer was published. He 
was restored to his professorship under Mary, and preached at Lati- 
mer and Ridley's martyrdom from the text, " If I give my body to be 
burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth nothing." The fact suggests 
that Smith himself had little charity ; neither did he give his body to 
be burnt, but again recanted in 1559, was deprived of his professor- 
ship on the ground of adultery, and was made chancellor of Douay 
University ; see D, N. B., liiii, 101-102, 



Theological Views 239 

he writes, * " by faith Christ to be present [in the 
sacrament], but the particularity how he is present, 
more than I am assured he is truly present, and 
therefore in substance present I cannot tell ; but pre- 
sent he is, and truly is and verily is, and . . . there- 
fore in substance is, andy as we term it^ substantially 
is presents The words in italics represent the posi- 
tion which Cranmer challenged ; and they have the 
merit of avoiding the vague term real. For spiritual 
things are as real as things material ; and in this 
sense Cranmer strenuously asserted the Real Pre- 
sence in the Sacrament. " As for the real presence 
of Christ in the Sacrament, " he writes, ** I grant that 
he is really present . . . that is to say in deed, and 
yet but spiritually."' That real did not involve a 
corporal presence ; and Gardiner's therefore begged 
the question. " Doth not God's word," asked Cran- 
mer, " teach a true presence of Christ in spirit where 
he is not present in his corporal substance ? As 
when he saith : * where two or three be gathered 
together in my name, there am I in the midst of 
them.* And also when he saith: 'I shall be with 
you till the end of the world.* Was it not a true 
presence that Christ in these places promised ? And 
yet can you not of this true presence gather such a 
corporal presence of the substance of Christ's man- 
hood as you unlearnedly contrary to the Scriptures 
go about to prove in the sacrament. " ' 

Cranmer's thesis is, " that as no Scripture, so no 
ancient author known and approved hath in plain 
terms your transubstantiation ; nor that the body 

* Cranmer, Works ^ i., 59. ' Ibid»^ i., 127. ' IHd.^ i., 61. 



240 Thomas Cranmer 

and blood of Christ be really, corporally, naturally, 
and carnally under the forms of bread and wine; 
nor that evil men do eat the very body and drink 
the very blood of Christ ; nor that Christ is offered 
every day by the priest a sacrifice propitiatory for 
sin." * His doctrine, he maintained, " was never 
condemned by no council, nor your false papistical 
doctrine allowed, until the devil caused Antichrist, 
his son and heir. Pope Nicholas II.,' with his 
monks and friars, to condemn the truth and con- 
firm these your heresies.** ' Elsewhere he declares 
that Pope Innocent III. was "the chief author of 
your doctrine both of transubstantiation and of the 
real presence.'** By " real presence** Cranmer gen- 
erally means a corporal presence, which Luther as- 
serted when he declared that " the mouth eats the 
body of Christ bodily.** Cranmer believed "that 
Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chewed, and 
digested ; but all is spiritually with faith, not with 
the mouth.'' ^ Here was a clear repudiation of Lu- 
theran doctrine, and Gardiner made a good forensic 
use of the discrepancy between the two Reformers. 
He complained that the Archbishop sought to pre- 
judice his opponent's case by calling the Real Pre- 
sence a Papistical dogma, whereas others held it who 
were no Papists, — for instance, Luther and himself. 

^ IVorks,!.,!^. 

* Nicholas II. was Pope from 1058 to 1061. 
' Works, i., 14. 

* Ibid'x., 65 ; Innocent was Pope from 1198 to 1216. 

^ Ibid., i., 15 ; the eating of God as a means of salvation was not, of 
course, originally a Christian idea ; it is found in some very primitive 
religions. 



Theological Views 241 

Cranmer retorted that he called it Papists' doctrine 
because Papists invented it, not because Papists and 
no one else believed in it ; and he pointed out that 
Luther was not a good witness for Gardiner to 
allege, because Luther, while holding the Real Pre- 
sence, denounced more emphatically than any other 
Reformer the doctrine of Transubstantiation, in 
which Gardiner believed. 

Having thus repudiated both Lutherans and Pa- 
pists, Cranmer showed that he did not sympathise 
with the extreme Zwinglian view, that the bread 
and wine were " bare tokens," and nothing more. 
" They be,'* he writes,^ " no vain or bare tokens (for 
a token is that which betokeneth only and giveth 
nothing, as a painted fire, which giveth neither light 
nor heat) ; but in the due ministration of the sacra- 
ments God is present, working with his word and 
sacrament." The bread and wine ** have promises 
of effectual significance."' "As the bread is out- 
wardly eaten indeed in the Lord's supper, so is the 
very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten indeed 
of all them that come thereto in such sort as they 
ought to do, which eating nourisheth them into 
everlasting life." ' " I do not say that Christ's body 
and blood be given to us in signification, and not in 
deed. But I do as plainly speak as I can, that 
Christ's body and blood be given to us in deed, 
yet not corporally and carnally, but spiritually and 
effectually."* 

This is the gist of Cranmer's teaching. There is 

' Works, i., II. * Ibid., i., 17. 

^/did.,i.,2(>. */W., i., 37. 



242 Thomas Cranmer 

both a real presence and a miraculous working in 
the sacrament; but both the presence and the work- 
ing are spiritual, not material. Christ is present in 
His divinity, not in His humanity * ; He is really 
absent in body, for that is in heaven, but He is 
really present in spirit ; " Christ is with us spiritually 
present, is eaten and drunken of us, and dwelleth 
within us, although corporally he be departed out of 
this world, and is ascended up into heaven "'; " He 
is neither corporally in the bread and wine, nor in 
or under the forms and figures of them, but is cor- 
porally in heaven, and spiritually in his lively mem- 
bers, which be his temple where he inhabiteth/" 
So, too, " the miraculous working is not in the bread, 
but in them that duly eat the bread, and drink that 
drink . . . For he is effectually present and effect- 
ually worketh, not in the bread and wine, but in the 
godly receivers of them."* "And the true eating 
and drinking of the said body and blood of Christ 
is with a constant and lively faith to believe that 
Christ gave his body and shed his blood upon the 
cross for us, and that he doth so join and incorporate 
himself to us that he is our head, and we his mem- 
bers, and flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, having 
him dwelling in us and we in him. And herein 
standeth the whole effect and strength of this sacra- 
ment. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our 
hearts by his holy Spirit.'"* The best summing up 
of Cranmer*s views may also be given in his own 
words ; " figuratively he is the bread and wine, and 

* Works, i., 49. * Ibid., i., 53-54. 

« ibid., i., 12 ; cf. p. 52. ^ /^V-, i., 34- * J^id., i., 43- 



Theological Views 243 

spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink 
the bread and wine ; but really, carnally, and cor- 
porally he is only in heaven, from whence he shall 
come to judge the quick and the dead." ^ 

These words represent Cranmer's mature opinion,* 
from which he only varied during some six weeks 
in 1556; and when that moment of weakness had 
passed he returned to the position here indicated, 
and in his last hour declared that he believed as he 
had taught in his book against the Bishop of Win- 
chester. His view of the Sacrament has been de- 
nounced as a " low " one ; but the only ground for 
the charge is the fact that Cranmer's doctrine re- 
duces the importance of the priest as an intercessor 
between God and man, and emphasises the direct 
as against the indirect relationship. The Sacrament 
still remains a miracle, but it is a miracle wrought 
by God and not by priests, a miracle feeding the 
souls of men, and not transforming material bread 



* Works, i., 139. 

2 Gardiner again replied to this book of Cranmer's in 1552, and 
the Archbishop was engaged on a further rejoinder when death cut 
short his work under Queen Mary ; see below, p. 357. Another 
controversial work attributed to Cranmer is A Confutation of Un- 
written Verities, which was published by an English exile, E. P., 
in 1558, and professed to be a translation from a Latin original by 
Cranmer ; but the only part that Cranmer appears to have had in 
the work was that it is based on a collection of passages from the 
Scriptures and the Fathers compiled by the Archbishop and pre- 
served among his commonplace-books in the British Museum {Royal 
MS.^ 7, B. xi,, xii.). It has been admitted into the various editions 
of Cranmer's Works, but Jenkyns is very doubtful as to its claim to 
be his, and remarks that ' ' it cannot be safely quoted as evidence of 
Cranmer's tenets." 



244 Thomas Cranmer 

and wine, a miracle relating not to the things seen 
which are temporal, but to the unseen things which 
are eternal. 

The denial of this material miracle wrought by 
the hands of priests struck at the root of the me- 
diaeval Church system, and it is for this reason that 
the religious controversies of the sixteenth century 
centred round the doctrine of the Mass. The sacer- 
dotal claim had always been that the grace of God 
flows only through priestly channels, and that none 
could be saved except by resort to the priestly 
monopoly. Hence came clericaL privilege and cler- 
ical rule ; " shall the hands that have made God," 
asked indignant churchmen in the time of Henry 
n., " be bound like those of a common malefactor? " 
Cranmer denied that the hands of the priest could 
" make God '* ; and therefore the whole super- 
structure fell to the ground. But this denial was 
the only means of its overthrow. 

" What availeth it," he asked in his preface, " to take 
away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such like popery, 
so long as the two chief roots remain unpulled up? 
Whereof, so long as they remain, will spring again all 
former impediments of the Lord's harvest, and cor- 
ruption of his flock. The rest is but branches and 
leaves, the cutting away whereof is but like topping and 
lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, leaving the 
body standing and the roots in the ground ; but the 
very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the weeds, 
is the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real 
presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament of 
the altar (as they call it), and of the sacrifice and obla- 



Theological Views 245 

tion of Christ made by the priest for the salvation of the 
quick and the dead ; which roots, if they be suffered to 
grow in the Lord's vineyard, they will overspread all the 
ground again with the old errors and superstitions." 



CHAPTER IX 

CRANMER AND THE SECOND BOOK OF COMMON 

PRAYER 

THERE is no greater mistake, and none more 
common, than to assume that the whole reign 
of Edward VI. is one period, marked throughout by 
the same characteristics, methods, and aims. In re- 
ality it is as misleading to identify the policy of 
Somerset with that of his successor, Northumber- 
land, as it would be to confuse Girondins with 
Jacobins in the history of the French Revolution. 
The year 1549, when Somerset fell, saw a change 
not merely in the personnel oithe Government, but in 
every sphere of its activity, in its attitude towards 
civil and religious liberty, in its treatment of so- 
cial questions, in its view of the relations between 
Church and State, and in its management of foreign 
affairs.* The one element of continuity was that 
Cranmer remained Archbishop of Canterbury under 
Northumberland's regime as he had been under that 
of Protector Somerset. But Cranmer had never 
been in a position to dictate the ecclesiastical policy 

* For a detailed proof of this statement see the present writer's 
England under Protector Somerset^ chap. x. 

246 



1549] Second Book of Common Prayer 247 

of the Government, and his continuance in the 
Primacy no more proves that the Second Book of 
Common Prayer was the natural and inevital^le 
outcome of the First than it proves that the Six 
were the natural and inevitable outcome of the 
Ten Articles. It was this revolution of 1549 and 
its consequences which provoked and embittered 
reaction and brought the chief actors in it, and 
others less guilty, like Cranmer, to a violent and 
untimely end. 

The First Act of Uniformity, and the First Book 
of Common Prayer represented the maximum of 
religious reform which the nation, as a whole, was 
prepared in 1 549 to accept.* This Act of Uniformity 
was the mildest ever passed by the English Parlia- 
ment ; it imposed no penalties for recusancy on the 
laity, and those imposed on the clergy were lighter 
than in any succeeding Act. It was a stren- 
uous attempt to effect reform with as little offence 
as possible. Like all compromises it was received 
with derision at both ends of the religious scale. 
But while the Protestants contented themselves with 
denouncing what they considered the puerilities and 
absurdities of the new service-book, the Catholics in 
the west broke out in revolt. It is not, however, 
clear that the various risings of 1549 had any 
close connexion with the Book of Common Prayer. 
There had been many disturbances in the previous 
year due to the enclosure of common lands and 



' The only other Act of ecclesiastical importance passed in 1548-49 
was one which granted a grudging legality to the marriage of 
priests. 



248 



Thomas Cranmer 



[1549- 



conversion of tillage to pasture, a movement which 
threw numbers out of work and was at the bottom 
of most of the rebellions in the sixteenth century. 
But popular discontent was turned to account by 
priests of the old persuasion, and even by emissaries 
from France then on the eve of war with England/ 
Hence the statement of grievances, which were no 
doubt drawn up by priests, laid more emphasis upon 
religious matters than the mass of insurgents would 
naturally have done themselves. The men of Corn- 
wall had, however, a tangible reason for disliking the 
new service-book, because many of them understood 
no English. They comprehended the old Latin no 
better ; but they were accustomed to its sound, and 
men tolerate the incomprehensible more readily than 
the unfamiliar. 

To Cranmer fell the task of replying to the articles ' 
drawn up by the insurgent leaders, and it was a 
matter of no great difficulty to prove their want of 
reason and logic. The first article demanded the 
observance of the decrees of all the General Councils 
and Popes; but, as Cranmer pointed out, these were 
full of contradictions. Moreover, one decree de- 

* A defence of the insurgents written in French but not printed 
until 1550 is summarised by Pocock {Troubles, etc., Camden So- 
ciety, pp. 18-20). Pocock thinks this is a translation from an Eng- 
lish original, which is lost. It is more probably an original emanat- 
ing from the French ambassador or one of his agents. Henri II. 
had previously attempted to use Lord Seymour's conspiracy as a 
means of embroiling England in civil war (see Hatfield MS S., vol. 
i., no. 268). 

* These articles are printed with Cranmer's reply in Cranmer's 
Works, ii., 163-188, and also with Nicholas Udall's reply by Pocock 

in Troubles, etc., pp. 141-193. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 249 

clared that whosoever did not acknowledge himself 
to be under the obedience of the Bishop of Rome 
was a heretic ; but such an acknowledgment would 
be treason by English law. Another said that all 
princes' laws against papal decrees were void ; that 
would invalidate not merely the legislation of Henry 
VI 1 1, but the statutes of Prcemunire and Provisors, 
the taxation of the clergy, and all the anti-ecclesias- 
tical legislation of the Middle Ages. A third forbade 
men to reprove the Pope even though his conduct 
might be imperilling thousands of souls. The second 
demand of the insurgents required the restoration of 
the statute of Six Articles, though this Act was, as 
Cranmer showed, inconsistent with several decrees 
of General Councils. The third insisted upon the 
revival of the Latin mass with no communicants ex- 
cept the priest ; the fourth demanded compulsory 
worship of the sacrament and the execution of all 
recusants as heretics — a ferocious requisition which 
deprived its authors of all title to mercy. The fifth 
would have the sacrament distributed but once a 
year — at Easter — and then in one kind only; this 
was a curious illustration of the working of the con- 
servative spirit, for the rebels wished to stereo- 
type a custom which, as Tunstall explained, had 
grown up " by coldness of devotion." * To the sixth 
article, requiring the administration of baptism on 
week-days as well as on holy days, the Archbishop 
replied that there was nothing to prevent it. The 
seventh and eighth asked for the restoration of 
candles, ashes, palms, and holy water, and repudiated 

* Burnet, v., 20i. 



250 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 

the new service because it was *' but like a Christmas 
game," and the Cornishmen understood no English. 
The ninth and tenth required prayers for souls in 
purgatory and the suppression of the English Script- 
ures because otherwise the clergy would not be able to 
confound the heretics.* The eleventh and twelfth 
articles demanded the release of two divines in 
prison, the pardon of Cardinal Pole, and his promo- 
tion to the Council. The thirteenth proposal was 
that no gentleman should keep more than one serv- 
ant unless he possessed lands worth more than 
a hundred marks a year; and the fourteenth de- 
manded the restitution of some of the suppressed 
abbeys and chantries. 

These last, and perhaps the seventh and eighth, 
were the only articles which can be supposed to re- 
present a really popular sentiment; and the inner 
mind of the authors of this document is best re- 
vealed in the reason given for the proposed suppres- 
sion of the English Bible ; illiterate priests wanted 
protection from the results of their own illiteracy, 
while their dangerous temper is illustrated by the 
demand for the execution of all who refused to 
worship the sacrament. Hard words are used, and 
not without justice, of the zealots who imperilled 
the cause of the Reformation by their arrogance; 
but the fanaticism was not all on one side, and a de- 
mand like this enforced by armed rebellion would 
have driven the most liberal Government into acts of 



' This was a very natural demand on the part of the clergy when 
not half of their number in the diocese of Gloucester could repeat 
the Ten Commandments. 




PROTECTOR SOMERSET. 

AFTER THE PORTSAIT, DATED 154S, IN THE POSSESSION OF SIR EDMUND VERNEY, AND NOW IN 
HIS HOUSE AT RHIANVA. REPaOOUCED BY THE OWNER'S PERMISSION. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 251 

repressive severity. Cranmer took the truest and 
the most charitable view, when he wrote that the 
rebels as a body did not know the meaning of that 
for which they were made to ask. 

He was, moreover, to some extent in sympathy 
with the social discontent which clerical agitators 
turned to their own account in the West. In his 
address to the people at St. Mary's, Oxford, on the 
day of his death he uttered a solemn warning to the 
rich, bidding them remember how hard it was for 
such to enter the kingdom of heaven, and earnestly 
exhorting them to show compassion to the poor in 
those days of their penury.' The same sympathy 
impelled Latimer" to denounce the covetousness of 
the landlords in inclosing lands, and reducing the 
peasant to poverty, and stirred the Protector to 
undertake that championship of poor men's causes 
which led to his ruin. The bills for their relief 
which he promoted in Parliament were thrown out, 
and the commissions he appointed to check in- 
closures proved powerless in face of the packing of 
juries, intimidation of witnesses, and perjury prac- 
tised by the landed gentry and encouraged by the 
Protector's own colleagues.' Baulked of the hopes 



* Strype, Cranmer ^ i., 556. 

^ In his famous sermon "Of the Plough" (Latimer, Sermons, 
Parker Soc, pp. 59-78). 

^For details see England under Protector Somerset, chapters 
viii.-ix. "The people," wrote Hooper to Bullinger, on 25 June, 
1549, " are sorely oppressed by the marvellous tyranny of the nobil- 
ity" {Original Letters, i., 66). A good statement of the poor men's 
complaints will be found in Robert Crowley's Works and Four Sup- 
plications, both published by the Early English Text Society. 



252 



Thomas Cranmer 



[1549- 



of redress, which Somerset's policy held out to 
them, the peasants rebelled in every direction, and 
the revolt attained its most serious dimensions in 
Norfolk, where Robert Kett instituted a poor men's 
commonwealth. 

Nor were these the only difficulties with which 
the Protector had to deal. The unscrupulous ego- 
tism of his brother, the Lord High Admiral, led him 
into treason and plot ; and the Protector's consent 
to his execution, extorted from him by cunning 
schemers who hoped to profit by his fall, fatally 
weakened his own position. The rebellions in the 
West and the East diverted troops which should 
have been sent into Scotland and France, and the 
French king seized the opportunity to declare war 
and attack the English Pale. Both there and in 
Scotland the English lost ground. In England 
Warwick defeated the English rebels, and his vic- 
tory made him the hero of the gentry, who now 
looked for revenge upon those who had hoped and 
dared to impede their career of prosperous pillage. 
The Protector himself was the head and front of 
offence, and in September, 1549, the party of War- 
wick determined upon his ruin. 

The Earl of Warwick, better known by his later 
title of Duke of Northumberland, was one of the 
ablest and most unprincipled party-leaders who have 
ever turned to their own advantage the resources 
and wealth of their country. A brilliant soldier, a 
skilful diplomatist, and an accomplished man of the 
world, he was aptly described at the time as a second 
Alcibiades ; and few men have exhibited a greater 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 253 

skill in intrigue, or a smaller regard for principle. 
For the moment Catholic and Protestant alike were 
to be his tools in contriving the Protector's destruc- 
tion. The former disliked the new Prayer Book, 
so rumours were spread of reaction; the Catholic 
Southampton was Warwick's chief ally, and hopes 
were entertained that Gardiner and Bonner would 
be released from the Tower. Protestant zealots, on 
the other hand, were annoyed at the Protector's ten- 
derness towards the Princess Mary and mass-priests, 
and anticipated under Warwick a more earnest pro- 
secution of the Gospel's enemies. The rich men 
abhorred the patron of Latimer ; and the governing 
classes, with few exceptions, hated the liberty on 
which Somerset set so much store. All was grist to 
Warwick's mill. 

With this intrigue the Archbishop had nothing to 
do. He was in attendance with Somerset, Paget, 
Cecil, and Sir Thomas Smith upon the young King 
at Hampton Court in September, 1549, while the 
cabal assembled in London. In the first week of 
October the storm burst. On the 6th Somerset 
hurried the King to Windsor, and from there carried 
on a war of words* with the Council in London. 
But his cause was hopeless ; men daily deserted his 
side, and his efforts to raise the peasants were 
defeated by Herbert and Russell, the victorious 
commanders returning from the West. Cranmer 
and Paget endeavoured to mediate between the two 

' Most of this correspondence is printed in Ty tier's Edward VI, 
and Mary, i., 203-247, and in Pocock, Z'r^??/^/*?^ (Camden Soc.) ; see 
also England under Protector Somerset^ chap. ix. 



254 Thomas Cranmer [1549 

parties, and obtained from the Council a promise 
that the Protector should not suffer in lands, in 
goods, or in honour. Somerset then submitted, 
and Cranmer and Paget removed his servants.' But 
the Council failed to observe its promises ; the Pro- 
tector was sent to the Tower, his adherents were 
driven from office, and the Government fell under 
the exclusive control of Warwick and his friends. 

What was to be their policy — reaction or reform ? 
For months the balance trembled. "Those cruel 
beasts, the Romanists," as one Reformer called them, 
*^ were now beginning to triumph '* over the downfall 
i6i the Duke, the overthrow of the Gospel, and the 
'" restoration of their darling the Mass." ' ** The 
papists," echoed Hooper on 7 November, "are hoping 
and earnestly struggling for their kingdom " ; and if 
Bonner were restored to his see, Hooper counted on 
being "restored to my country and my Father 
which is in heaven." " At Basel it was reported that 
Bucer and other reformers had been arrested with 
the Protector,* and that Somerset's fall would bring 
the Reformation to ruin. Bonner's appeal against 
his deprivation by Cranmer in September was under 
consideration ; Gardiner had petitioned for release 
from the Tower; and Southampton, who was by 

^ Tytler accuses Cranmer of treachery in this action, but the 
charge is scarcely justified. By Somerset's submission the Govern- 
ment had passed to the Council, and in removing the Protector's 
servants from about the King, the Archbishop was only carrying out 
a natural and necessary measure. 

^ Original Letters^ ii., 464. 

^ Ibid., i., 70. 

4/W., i., 353. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 255 

some credited with the chief share in the successful 
plot, had re-established Catholic influence in the 
Council. 

It was a critical moment in English history, but 
there is insufficient evidence to show clearly the 
forces and circumstances which determined the re- 
sult. Parliament met, as usual, early in November, 
and whatever doubt might exist as to its religious 
attitude there was none about the spirit in which it 
proceeded to deal with social questions. The land- 
lords were resolved to have their revenge on the 
peasants. Acts were passed enabling them to in- 
close as much land as they liked, and imposing the 
severest penalties upon all who ventured on oppo- 
sition'; and it was actually declared a felony for poor 
people to meet with the object of reducing rents or 
prices.* Treason-laws were restored and strength- 
ened, and the Protector's guarantees against their 
abuse were abolished. The penalty of treason was 
extended to offences against Privy Councillors, and 
even to all assemblies for the ** altering of the 
laws." ' Never did Henry VIII., or Charles I., or 
James II., aim such blows at English liberties as the 
men who controlled the fate of the Reformation in 
the latter days of Edward VI. 

In spite of the apparent success of militant Pro- 
testantism during these years, from 1549-15 5 3, the 
cause of reform and Cranmer had fallen on evil days. 
There was naturally little sympathy between North- 
umberland and the Archbishop, and on many 



' 3 and 4, Edward VI., c. 3. ■ Ibid., 18. » IHd., 5 

18 



256 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 

qucstions, political and religious, they came into con- 
flict. Once Northumberland sought to put John 
Knox into the see of Rochester to serve as a " whet- 
stone to quicken and sharp the Bishop of Canterbury 
whereof he hath need " * ; and subsequently Cran- 
mer declared that the Duke had often gone about 
to effect his destruction.' Other leaders of re- 
form were less clear-sighted. Hooper hailed North- 
umberland as " that most faithful and intrepid 
soldier of Christ," and declared that England could 
not do without him, for he was " a most holy and 
fearless instrument of the Word of God." ' In the 
eyes of foreign Protestants he and his dupe, the fee- 
ble-minded Dorset (afterwards Duke of Suffolk), * 
were "the two most shining lights of the Church 
of England." ^ Some likened Northumberland to 
Joshua, and Bale compared him with Moses. He 
had, in fact, made Bale an Irish bishop, and Hooper 
also had cause for gratitude, for he wrote, " unless 
he had been on my side, in the cause of Christ, it 
would have been all over with me five months since, 
when the Duke of Somerset was in such difficulties." ' 
Besides these particular reasons for faith in War- 
wick, the Reformers ascribed to him the overthrow 
of the Romanist hopes. It is not, however, likely 
that Warwick would have espoused their cause un- 

* Calendar of Domestic State Papers, 1547-80, p. 46. Tytler^ ii., 
142. 

'Cranmer to Queen Mary, Works, ii., 444. 
' Original Letters, i. , 82, 89. 

* The father of Lady Jane Grey. 
^ Original Letters, p. 399. 
e/W.,i., 83. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 257 

less he had thought it the winning side, and he was 
probably led to this conclusion by the ease with 
which Parliament and especially the Lower House 
of 1549-50 passed anti-Catholic and anti-ecclesias- 
tical measures. The most important of these was 
the Act ordering the destruction of all the old serv- 
ice-books except the Primers of Henry VHI. An- 
other Act was passed once more enabling the Crown 
to appoint a commission for the reform of the Canon 
Law/ and a third empowered a commission of 
six Bishops and six others to draw up an Ordinal. ' 
It was, however, evident that the change of Govern- 
ment had widened the breach between Church and 
State. During Somerset's rule there had always 
been a large attendance of Bishops in the House of 
Lords, and he had always secured a majority of 
episcopal votes for his measures. Only nine Bish- 
ops, however, out of twenty-seven were present at 
this meeting of Parliament, and a much larger pro- 
portion of them voted against the Government. 
Cranmer, Holbeach of Lincoln, Ridley of Rochester, 
and Ferrar of St. Davids — all staunch Reformers — 
as well as the accommodating Goodrich of Ely, and 
Catholics like Tunstall, Thirlby, Heath, and Day, dis- 
sented in vain from the second of the above-mentioned 
Acts ; and such a consensus of Church opinion 
against a bill promoted by Government was a new 



* Previous Acts to this effect had been passed in 1534, 1536, and 

1544. 

' That is to say, a ' ' form and manner of making and consecrating 
of archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons, and other ministers of the 
church." 



258 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 

thing in the history of the Reformation. The Bish- 
ops met with a similar rebuff when they complained 
that their jurisdiction was openly contemned and de- 
rided ; and their efforts to strengthen their authority 
by parliamentary legislation met with no success.* 

The brief period of comparative religious liberty 
which the nation had enjoyed under Protector Som- 
erset had come to an end, and the expulsion of the 
remaining Catholics from the Council was soon fol- 
lowed by religious persecution. Early in 1550 War- 
wick had the Earl of Arundel and Sir Richard 
Southwell imprisoned, and on the second of Febru- 
ary Southampton's name was struck off the list of 
members." Their offices and those of Somerset's 
friends were now distributed among the faction of 
Warwick, who packed the Council, as he afterwards 
packed the House of Commons with his nominees; 
and thus was constituted what has gravely been 
termed the "Reformed Administration." ' It is 



* The bill which the Bishops introduced was thought to claim too 
much, and was referred to a committee on which Cranmer served, 
but even as modified by this committee the bill failed to become law. 

' Wriothesley, Chron., ii., 33. 

2 By Froude, who arrived at this conclusion by failing to distin- 
guish between the deeds of Somerset and those of Warwick ; for 
instance, he accuses Somerset of gross laxity in pardoning Sir 
William Sharington, who had been convicted of treason for tamper- 
ing with the coinage, whereas Sharington was not pardoned until 
November, 1549, after Somerset's fall. His pardon, indeed, illus- 
trates the charge brought by Bishop Ponet against the new system, 
viz., that "corrupt officials took council with crafty Alcibiades {i. e.^ 
Warwick) how to make non-accompt." ( Treatise of Politicke Power ^ 
1556). For Sharington, see the present writer in Diet. Nat. Biogr, ; 
he had been one of Lord Seymour's accomplices. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 259 

probable that no English ministry has been more 
corrupt. Under its sway, complaints of bribery in 
the courts of justice grew louder than ever, and the 
sale of offices was recognised even by Parliament. 
Somerset had effected a slight improvement in the 
coinage, but under Warwick it reached a lower 
depth of debasement than under Henry VIII. 
Popular discontent led to proposals for Somerset's 
restoration, and the fear lest Parliament should take 
up this cry prevented Warwick from calling it to- 
gether,* while the lack of parliamentary supply 
compelled the Government to look elsewhere for 
resources. The Church was the readiest mine to 
plunder, and the Chantry lands, the bulk of which 
had hitherto been reserved for application to educa- 
tional purposes, were laid under requisition. Some 
of this wealth went to relieve public necessities, but 
much found its way into the pockets of courtiers. 
These lands, says Fuller, were regarded as the last 
dish in the last course of the feast provided by the 
Church, and in July, 1552, a commission was ap- 
pointed for taking the surrender of all that remained.' 
Cranmer in vain resisted, pleading that these endow- 
ments might be kept till the King should come of 
age.' " I have heard," wrote Ridley, " that Cranmer 
and another whom I will not name were both in 
high displeasure, the one for shewing his conscience 



* It met on 4 November, 1549, and then not again until after 
Somerset's death in January, 1552. 

* British Museum Addit. MS., 5498, f. 40 ; Stowe MS., 141, ff., 

59-63. 

* Narratives of the Reformation, p. 247. 



26o Thomas Cranitier [154^ 

secretly but plainly and fully in the Duke of Somer- 
set's cause, and both of late, but specially Cranmer, 
for repugning as they might against the late spoil of 
Church goods, taken away only by commandment 
of the higher powers without any law or order of 
justice." * Then greedy eyes were turned on episco- 
pal revenues ; the surrender of a manor or two was 
the general condition imposed on a prelate before 
his elevation; and Ponet was even made to give up 
all the endowments of Winchester in return for a 
stipend of two thousand marks. The bishopric of 
Westminster was abolished, and a nefarious project 
of Northumberland's to suppress the great see of 
Durham was only defeated by his own expulsion 
from office.* 

Oppression went hand in hand with corruption, 
and practically all the cases of religious persecution 
quoted by Roman Catholic writers date from this 
period of the reign. The Princess Mary had been 
allowed by the Protector to have mass celebrated in 
her household ; but this licence was now withdrawn." 



* Ridley, Worksy Parker Soc. , p. 59. 

' He hoped to gain ;^20OO a year by this transaction. ( Tytler^ 

ii., 143.) 

'Cranmer had little or nothing to do with the ill-treatment of 
Mary ; he was only present at one out of the score or so of meetings 
of the Council to discuss her case ; and when the question of her 
licence to hear mass was referred to him, Ridley, and Ponet, they 
replied that it was permissible under pressure to tolerate such an 
infraction of the law. So, too, his action in Gardiner's case seems 
to have been purely " official." He was head of the commission to 
try him, but took no part in the proceedings which led up to the 
issue of that commission, did not sign it, and was not present at the 
Council meeting when it was issued. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 261 

Bonner, indeed, had been deprived of his bishopric 
by Cranmer for contumacy on the eve of Somerset's 
fall, but the sentence was not confirmed until Feb- 
ruary, 1550, when the Catholics had been driven 
from the Council ; and Gardiner, although confined 
in the Tower, was not deprived until February, 
155 1. That same year saw the deprivation of Heath 
of Worcester, and Day of Chichester, and the resig- 
nation of Voysey of Exeter, while Tunstall was 
sent to the Tower on an absurd charge of treason. 
Two heads of Oxford colleges. Dr. Cole, of New, 
and Dr. Morwen, of Corpus Christi, were im- 
prisoned and a similar fate befell two of Gardi- 
ner's chaplains ; four other Catholics fled from the 
country — John Boxall, afterwards Queen Mary's 
secretary, William Rastell, the nephew of Sir 
Thomas More, Dr. Richard Smith, the Catholic 
controversialist, and Nicholas Harpsfield. 

At the other end of the religious scale, Joan 
Bocher was burnt in May, 1550, and for her execu- 
tion the Archbishop has been held primarily respon- 
sible. He had protected her during the persecution 
of the Six Articles in 1541-42, but her opinions grew 
more and more heterodox, and in May, 1549, she 
was condemned by Cranmer for heresy. She was 
then left in Newgate prison for a year ** in the hope 
of conversion," and Cranmer, Ridley, Goodrich, 
Latimer, Lever, Whitehead, and Hutchinson all 
tried their hands at persuasion. " I had her," de- 
clared Lord Chancellor Rich, ' " a sevennight in my 
house after the writ was out for her to be burnt, 

*Foxe, vii., 631. 



262 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 

where my lord of Canterbury and Bishop Ridley 
resorted almost daily unto her." The gravamen of 
the charge against Cranmer rests upon the story of 
Foxe that the Archbishop had much ado to persuade 
the young King to sign a warrant for her execution, 
and that Edward " lay all the charge thereof upon 
Cranmer before God.'** The alleged incident was 
used by Foxe to invest the King with a compassion 
which he certainly did not possess, and this ** im- 
portunity for blood " ' has been objected against 
the Archbishop by nearly all his critics. But Foxe*s 
story is a work of imagination; the incident is 
not mentioned by Edward himself in his journal,' 
nor alleged against Cranmer at his trial. As a 
matter of fact the young King, then only thirteen 
years of age, could not and did not sign any war- 
rants at all. They were signed by the Council, and 
upon this authority a writ de hceretico comburendo 
was issued by the Lord Chancellor to the Sheriff of 
London. Moreover, at the particular meeting of 
the Council at which the warrant was signed the 
Archbishop himself was not present and so did not 



* Foxe, v., 699. 

^ Hay ward, Life and Raigne of Edward Sexf, 1630, p. 7 ; the way 
in which stories grow may be seen by the reckless fashion in which 
Hay ward has '* embellished" Foxe's account ; according to him, the 
Archbishop was " violent both by persuasions and entreaties" and 
** prevailed with mere importunity," and he winds up with the re- 
mark that *' not many years passed but this Archbishop also felt the 
smart of the fire." He treats it, in fact, as a tale to point a moral. 

^Literary Remains of Edward VI., p. 264 ; the terms in which 
he records Joan's execution do not imply much sympathy. "She 
reviled." says Edward, " the preacher that preached at her death." 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 263 

sign the warrant.* Joan's pitiful story is no evidence 
against the mildness of Cranmer's character, but it 
illustrates the narrowness with which most Reform- 
ers interpreted the doctrine of private judgment. 
Liberalism was no part of their creed, and even the 
martyr John Philpot, when himself on trial for 
heresy, declared that Joan was a ** heretic, well 
worthy to be burnt, because she stood against the 
manifest articles of our faith." ' 

Yet the religious persecution of Warwick's ad- 
ministration must not be exaggerated ; for, after all, 
Foxe is justified in the boast that during the whole 
reign of Edward no one, save Joan Bocher and 
George van Parris, lost his life for the sake of 
religion,' — a striking record compared with the 
reign of Mary, whose moderation is held to be 
proved by the reduction of the number of ascer- 
tained victims to something short of three hundred ! 
The severity of Warwick's government was, in fact, 
directed mainly against his political foes and the 
poorer classes. Religion to him was really an in- 
different matter, and his chief object was to secure 



^ Acts of the Privy Council, 1550-52, pp. 15, 19 ; nor, of course, 
was the King present at meetings of the Council. The warrant is in 
Brit. Mus., Harleian MS., 6195, No. 10. See also Hutchinson, 
Works, Parker Soc, pp. iii.-v., Lit. Remains of Edward VI., pp. 
ccvi., ccxi. ; and Latimer, Remains, p. 114. A year later an Ana- 
baptist, George van Parris, was burnt in the same way. 

'Foxe, vii., 631. 

^ Ibid., 700. The claim to include those who suffered in the west- 
ern rebellion among martyrs for religion can scarcely be admitted ; 
for one does not usually include in that category those who fell in 
Wyatt's rebellion under Queen Mary. 



564 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 

himself in power and to please those on whose sup- 
port he depended. His rival, the Protector, was 
ultimately brought by the foulest means to the 
scaffold,* and the violence of his rule so disgusted 
the nation that as soon as the opportunity arose 
it declared with one voice against him. That he 
was able to go on so long unmolested was largely 
due to a most favourable conjunction of foreign 
affairs. He made a most ignominious peace with 
France in March, 1550, which, although it sur- 
rendered all that the Tudors had fought for in Scot- 
land, and prepared the way for the dangers which 
threatened England under Elizabeth, yet gave his 
government temporary security. Then in 1551-52 
war approached between France and the Emperor, 
and the rising of Germany against Charles V.' left 
Warwick free to pursue his own devices without fear 
of external alarms. 

It was under these circumstances that the Re- 
formation was prosecuted in England during the 
later years of Edward VI. The new Ordinal, which 
Parliament had empowered a commission to com- 
pile, was published in March, 1550, and it is proba- 
ble that Cranmer, assisted by Ridley, had the chief 
share in its composition.' The commissioners took 
no advantage of the liberty allowed by the Act to 

* See England under Protector Somerset^ chap, xi : the means in- 
cluded a good deal of perjury and probably forgery. 

^ See the present writer in Cambridge Modern History^ vol. ii., 
chap. viii. 

^ The names of the commissioners are not known ; the Privy 
Council Register (1547-50, p. 379) mentions their appointment but 
not their names. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 265 

provide for the ordination of " other ministers " — 
L e.y ostiaries, lectors, exorcists, acolytes, and sub- 
deacons — below the rank of deacon ; and their form- 
ulary swept away a vast mass of gorgeous ritual 
centained in the old Pontificals. It was a long step 
in the direction of simplicity, ** but all that was ne- 
cessary to convey the clerical character was never- 
theless preserved " * ; and like every other measure 
that Cranmer took it excited the displeasure of the 
extremists. Bishop Heath of Worcester was sent 
to the Fleet prison for refusing to subscribe the 
book, and on the other hand, Hooper, the favourite 
of Warwick,' and the most popular preacher at this 
time in London denounced the Ordinal as soon as 
it was published. In a letter to Bullinger he spoke 
of the " fraud and artifices by which they promote 
the kingdom of anti-Christ especially in the form of 
the oath." ' For this he was summoned before the 
Council at Cranmer's instance, and upbraided by the 
Archbishop, but at length, he says, " the issue was for 
the glory of God." At Easter Warwick offered him 
the bishopric of Gloucester.* He was appointed by let- 
ters patent on the 3rd of July, but objected to taking 

' Dixon, iii., 194 ; the most important point was perhaps the re- 
tention of the exclusive power of Bishops to ordain. 

^ Dr. Gairdner (p. 177) attributes Hooper's preferment to Somer- 
set's influence ; but Hooper ascribed his safety in November, 1549, to 
Warwick, and to Warwick he must have owed his appointment as 
Lent preacher in 1550, as Somerset was then in the Tower. War- 
wick, moreover, was his support in the ' ' vestiarian " controversy, and 
on Warwick all Hooper's praises were lavished at this time. Against 
this evidence I do not think the assertions of John ab Ulmis {Orig, 
Letters, ii., 410) and of Froude(v., 210) have much weight. 

• Orig. Lett., i., 81. * Ibid,, i., 87. 



266 Thomas Cranmer [154^ 

the oath by the Saints and using the "Aaronic" 
vestments required by the Ordinal. After much 
argument he persuaded the young King to put his 
pen through this objectionable oath,* and to write 
a letter to Cranmer recommending his consecration 
in the simpler form. The Archbishop had too much 
respect for the constitution to obey, and merely 
referred Hooper to Ridley who endeavoured to 
remove his scruples. His efforts were vain, and at 
the end of July Hooper " obtained leave from the 
King and the Council to be consecrated by the 
Bishop of London without superstition.'* Ridley, 
however, convinced the Council that Hooper was 
wrong, and the Bishop-elect of Gloucester was con- 
fined to his house. Cranmer, meanwhile, appealed 
to Bucer and Martyr,* while Hooper sought the 
advice of John k Lasco. The two former rebuked 
Hooper's scruples, but the Pole encouraged re- 
sistance. Hooper kept neither his house nor 
silence; he rushed into print with a confession of 
faith, and the Council in January, 155 1, ordered him 
into the Archbishop's custody " either there to be 
reformed or further to be punished as the obstinacy 
of his case requireth." ' A fortnight later Cranmer 
reported that his prisoner could not be brought to 

* Canou Dixon (iii., 214 n.) appears to disbelieve this story and 
remarks that Foxe has nothing about it; but it is narrated in a 
letter from Hooper's confidant, Micronius, to BuUinger on 28 
August, 1550. (Ori^. Lett,, ii., 567.) 

« This letter of Cranmer is in Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 28571, /. 46. 
It is printed not in the Parker Society's collected Works but in 
Pocock's Troubles, p. 130. Bucer's answer is in his Scripta An- 
glica, p. 681, A Lasco's in Dalton's Lasciana, Berlin, 1898, p. 329. 

^ Acts of the Privy Council, 1550-15 52, p. 191. 




Copyright Photo., Walker & CockereU. 
KING EDWARD VI. 

PAINTED AFTER A DRAWING BY HOLBEIN. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 267 

conformity ; and he was therefore sent to the Fleet. 
There, much to the grief of the Zwinglian party, 
Hooper at length submitted to be made a Bishop 
in the ordinary way. He draws a veil over his own 
discomfiture and writes t6 Bullinger that " as the 
Lord has put an end to this controversy, I do not 
think it worth while to violate the sepulchre of this 
unhappy tragedy." * 

Cranmer and Ridley had thus vindicated the 
Church against the " Father of Nonconformity," but 
Ridley's visitation of his London bishopric in 1550, 
and conversion of altars into communion-tables, in- 
dicated that both prelates had made considerable 
advances towards the Swiss doctrines, of which 
Hooper was the most uncompromising champion. 
The fact that these views were held abroad has 
often been used to involve them in odium — as if 
Catholic doctrines were not also accepted by foreign- 
ers ; as if Christianity itself were not a foreign pro- 
duct; and as if theological truth were a matter to 
be determined by national prejudices ! Cranmer 
took the more liberal view and thought that truth 
should be admitted even though it did come from 
a foreign source, and he entertained the idea of 
assembling in England a body of divines whose 
weight should counterbalance that of the Fathers at 
Trent.* The disturbed state of Germany assisted 



' Original Letters^ ii., 712. Hooper's letter to Cranmer signi- 
fying his submission is in Brit. Mus. Add. AfSS., 28571,^. 24-26. 

- This project was always in Cranmer's mind, but he made special 
efforts to bring it to pass in 1548 and 1549. See Cranmer's Letters^ 
Nos. cclxxxvi., cclxxxix., ccxcvi., ccxcvii., and ccxcviii. 



268 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 

his efforts, and many a noted Reformer fled from 
the vengeance of Charles V., and was entertained 
by Cranmer at Lambeth. 

Among those who arrived in 1547 was Pietro 
Martire Vermigli,* a native of Florence, who was 
better known as Peter Martyr, and like Luther had 
been an Augustinian monk. He came from Strass- 
burg, stayed for a time with Cranmer before be- 
coming Regius Professor at Oxford, and was invited 
by the Archbishop to suggest emendations on the 
First Book of Common Prayer. From the same 
city came Tremellius," the Hebraist, a Jew of 
Ferrara, who found a home and employment at 
Cambridge ; and from Augsburg came Bernardino 
Ochino,' a Franciscan and a native of Siena. These 
three Italians had been driven from Italy by the 
failure of the Reformation there, and from Germany 
by the victory of Charles over the Schmalkaldic 
League. In 1548 the Pole, John k Lasco,* reached 
Lambeth, and shares with Ridley and Latimer the 
disputed honour of having sapped Cranmer*s belief 
in the Real Presence ; he was accompanied by John 



^ P, M. Vermigli (1500-1562). See Did, Nat. Biogr., Iviii., 253. 

5 John Immanuel Tremellius (1510-1580) studied at Padua, was 
converted from Judaism by Cardinal Pole, land then became a Pro- 
testant ; entertained by Cranmer at Lambeth in 1547, made King's 
reader in Hebrew at Cambridge, 1549, and prebendary of Carlisle, 
1552, fled to the Continent in 1553. {Did, Nat. Biogr.^ Ivii., 186.) 

3 Bernardino Ochino (1487-1564), noted for his eloquent preach- 
ing, was made prebendary of Cranmer's cathedral in 1548 ; he fled 
to Basel in 1553. His theological works, written in Italian, were 
translated into English (Z>. N. B., xli., 350.) 

^ 3ee above, pp. 216, 266, 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 269 

Utenhove,' a native of Ghent. The great Melanch- 
thon himself was invited, but preferred to remain 
at Wittenberg. The second most famous of living 
German divines was, however, induced to come in 
the person of Martin Bucer,' who, like his friend 
Fagius," exchanged Strassburg for Cambridge and 
died there. Lesser lights among this galaxy of 
distinguished strangers were Francis Dryander, the 
Spaniard ; Martin Micronius, the friend of BuUinger ; 
Valeran Poullain, the superintendent of the colony 
of Flemish weavers established by Somerset at 
Glastonbury ; Peter Alexander of Aries, once chap- 
lain to Charles V.'s sister Mary, Regent of the 
Netherlands, and Jean V^ron, a Frenchman, who 
wrote vigorous tracts denouncing the mass.* It is, 
however, probable that these foreign divines ex- 
ercised less influence than the Englishmen who had 
fled from the persecution of Henry VIII., imbibed 
foreign ideas, and returned under Edward VI. 
Hooper, for instance, who had sat at Bullinger*s 
feet, was more potent than Bucer ; Coverdale, who 
had lived abroad for fifteen years, may well be 

^ John Utenhove {d. 1565) resided in England, 1548-53, helped to 
plant the Flemish colony at Glastonbury, and in Elizabeth's reign 
was "first elder" of the Dutch Church, London (Z>. N. B.^ Iviii., 

73.) 

' Bucer was the most influential of foreign divines in England, see 
D. N. B., vii., 172, and the more recent life by A. Erichson (Strass- 
burg, 1891). 

^ Paul Fagius (i 504-1 549), a native of the Palatinate, was made 
Hebrew reader at Cambridge in 1549, ^^^ d\&di there in the same year. 

*See D. N. B.^ Iviii., 283 ; he was author of the Five Abominable 
Blasphemies Contained in the Mass, 1548, described by Pocock, who 
had not traced the author^ in En^l, Hist, Rev., x;,, 419-420, 



270 



Thomas Cranmer 



[154^ 



compared with Martyr; and smaller men, such as 
Bishop Bale, John Rogers, the " proto-martyr," and 
Bartholomew Traheron, popularised foreign ideas 
more effectively than immigrants who knew little 
English. Yet again it must not be forgotten that 
the English Church in the sixteenth century assimi- 
lated little that had not been taught by the Eng- 
lish Wy cliff e,* and that it involves a distortion of 
terms to label it at any time Lutheran, Zwinglian, 
or Calvin istic' 

All these forces were, however, thrown into the 
balance against the compromise which had been 
embodied in the First Book of Common Prayer, par- 
ticularly with regard to the Real Presence. Cran- 

* The extraordinary parallelism between Wyclifife's ideas and the 
English Reformation is often neglected. Wycliffe called upon the 
State to reform a corrupt church ; that was the basis of the whole 
Tudor policy. He ' ' habitually treats the papacy in its present form as 
the most signal manifestation of the spirit of Anti-Christ " ; that is 
precisely Cranmer's position . Wycliffe ' ' denounces the whole princi- 
ple of monasticism " ; Henry VIII, uprooted it. Wycliffe '* pleads for 
the permission of clerical marriages, though he seems to regard celi- 
bacy as the higher ideal " ; that is exactly the tone of the 1549 ^^^ 
of Parliament. Wycliffe "strenuously insisted upon the supreme 
importance of spiritual religion . . . and the comparative un- 
importance of ceremonies " ; here in a nutshell is the motive of Ed- 
ward VI. 's legislation. Finally he reduced the *' Real Presence" in 
the Eucharist to a spiritual presence. (The above quotations are 
from Dr. Rashdall's article on Wycliffe in D. N. B.^ Ixiii., 220-1.) 

* A loose habit has grown up of speaking about Calvinistic influ- 
ence in England during the reign of Edward VI. The Low Church 
influence of that time was Zwinglian, not Calvinistic ; and BuUinger, 
not Calvin was then the oracle of the most advanced Reformers. 
It was not till Elizabeth's reign, after the return of the Marian 
exiles from Geneva, that Calvin exercised any great influence on 
the English Church, 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 271 

mer had given up that doctrine in 1548, and in 1550 
during the controversy with Gardiner' maintained 
that it was not really recognised — at least not in the 
sense in which Gardiner interpreted it — in the 
Prayer Book. This controversy may have sug- 
gested or emphasised to the Reformers the need for 
revising the First Book oi Common Prayer; and the 
more important changes in the Second seem de- 
signed to enforce and establish that interpretation 
of the First Book which Cranmer upheld against 
Gardiner'; the door was at last to be shut on the 
Old Learning. But these points often and not un- 
naturally coincided with those in which Bucer in- 
sisted that the First Book needed revision, and to 
his Censura ' has sometimes been ascribed the de- 
termining influence in the matter. It is, in fact, im- 
possible to discriminate precisely the respective 
shares of these collaborating forces in producing the 
Second Book of Common Prayer ; but, on the whole, 
the changes in the Second Book went farther than 
Bucer recommended. Bucer represented a com- 
promise between Luther and Zwingli ; the First Book 
was more Lutheran, the Second more Zwinglian 



' See above, pp. 237-244. 

' " Everything in the First Prayer Book upon which Gardiner had 
fixed as evidence that the new liturgy did not reject the old belief, 
was in the revision carefully swept away and altered." — Gasquet and 
Bishop, p. 289. 

' This Censura is printed in Bucer's Scripta Anglicana (Basel, 
1577. fol.). It was addressed, not, as has often been assumed, to 
Cranmer, but to Bucer's diocesan. Bishop Goodrich of Ely. Lau- 
rence in his Bamfton Lectures (pp. 246-7) minimises Bucer's in- 
fluence, 



272 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 

than he liked. His advice was taken when he 
urged the adoption of Zwinglian forms, rejected 
when he pleaded for the retention of the semi- 
Lutheran phrases of 1549. At his request words in 
the Communion Office which might be construed as 
implying the *' permanence of the body and blood 
of Christ under the species of bread and wine," and 
as justifying adoration of the Sacrament, were de- 
leted.* On the other hand, his exhortations were 
neglected when he argued against the excision of 
certain phrases, the absence of which would, he 
thought '* cast a doubt on the reality of the Act of 
Communion."* 

Besides Bucer, Peter Martyr also submitted the 
Book of 1549 to an examination ; but his work was 
not done with the same care and learning as Bucer's, 
and it had little influence on the Book of 1552. 
Even Bucer's opinion prevailed only so far as it 
coincided with those of Cranmer and Ridley, to 
whom was due the chief share in the compilation of 
the Second Book of Common Prayer. The princi- 
pal changes were made in the Communion Office, 
and the motive for them was doubtless the fact that, 
the sequence of the 1549 Office being substantially 
that of the old mass, Catholic priests were able by 
mumbling the words and repeating the old manual 
acts to make the new form appear almost indistin- 
guishable from the old " idolatrous Mass." In the 
1552 Office no room was left for this representation 
or misrepresentation. The service was so arranged 
as to exclude the ideas of sacrifice and corporal 

^ Gasquet and Bishop, p. 295, note, * Ibid.^ p. 293. 



1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 273 

presence which had interpenetrated every word and 
action in the Mass.' The word *' altar " was ex- 
punged ; the Kyrie Eleisoti instead of being an invo- 
cation of the presence of the Lord was changed into 
an ordinary prayer for grace to keep the Ten Com- 
mandments; the Gloria in Excclsis^ instead of beinsr 
placed at the beginning of the Office and heralding 
the presence of God, was placed at the end ; and the 
words, " Blessed is He that cometh in the name of 
the Lord," were omitted as implying the same con- 
ception. The Agnus Dei was also left out, ordinary 
instead of unleavened bread was to be used, the 
wearing of the alb, chasuble, and cope were expressly 
prohibited, and the minister was ordered to stand 
at the north side of the *' communion-table," which 
henceforth was to be placed in the body of the 
church and not at the east end.' Scarcely less 
drastic were the changes effected in the Orders for 
Baptism, and Confirmation, and in the revision of 
the Ordinal published in 1550. 

With the exception of several points,the importance 

' The alterationsj can best be appreciated by consulting Parker's 
First Book of Common Prayer, where the offices are printed side by 
side; they are summarised and elucidated in Gasquet and Bishop, 
pp. 2S9-297. 

' Several of these changes were annulled in the Prayer Book of 
1559, which revived some of the usages of 1549 ; with regard to or- 
naments the controversy is whether the rubric relating to them en- 
joins the ornaments of the 1549 Prayer Book or those in use before 
that Prayer Book ; the rubric says those " in use by the authority of 
Parliament in the second year of Edward VI." The First Prayer 
Book did not receive the royal assent till the third year of Edward 
VI., but it is not certain that the rubric did not mean the ornaments 
of the First Prayer Book, although the phrase is inaccurate. 



274 Thomas Cranmer [1549-1552] 

of which is variously estimated by different schools of 
High and Low churchmen, the Prayer Book of 1552 
is substantially the same as that of the present day. 
It has been criticised in recent years as approach- 
ing too nearly to continental Protestantism and 
particularly to the views of Zwingli's successor 
Bullinger. But that would seem no ground for 
objection to Cranmer; the insularity and isolation 
which is now the pride and the boast of the average 
Englishman had not then laid so firm a hold upon 
him, and Cranmer thought that to differ in religion 
from the rest of the world implied a presumption 
of error rather than truth. He had no wish to make 
the Anglican Church national in doctrine or ritual, 
but only in jurisdiction and government. It was to 
remain in communion with the Catholic Church 
purified of papal corruptions. The changes effected 
between 1549 and 1552 were designed to facilitate 
an accommodation with the Reformed Churches 
abroad ; and this purified Catholic Church was by 
means of a Reformed General Council to bring the 
whole of Christendom into a new and scriptural 
unity. No one can describe that ideal as ignoble, 
and Cranmer cannot be condemned for failing to 
see that the unity of the visible Church was shattered 
for ever. To the clearest vision of the sixteenth 
century it remained hidden that the national and 
secularising forces which came to birth in that age 
would go on ever increasing in strength and ever 
widening the breach between the modern world and 
that world in which one Church universal was pos- 
sible and that Church could rival the State- 



CHAPTER X 

THE DOWNFALL OF ENGLISH PROTESTANTISM 

THE Second Book of Common Prayer was ushered 
into the world amid signs and portents which 
boded ill for its long life and prosperity. It was im- 
posed on the nation by a new Act of Uniformity 
which for the first time threatened penalties against 
the " great number of people in divers parts of the 
realm '* who did '* wilfully and damnably refuse to 
come to their parish churches '* ^ ; and the reluctance 
of the nation to accept moderate reforms was to be 
cured by passing more radical measures and increas- 
ing the rigour with which they were to be enforced. 
The remains of the liberal system which Somerset 
had established were to be swept away ; the Pro- 
tector himself was sent to the block,* and the Council 



* If they neglected to attend Common Prayer on Sundays and holy 
days they were to be punished with ecclesiastical censures and ex- 
communication ; if they attended any but the authorised form of 
worship they were liable to six months' imprisonment for the first 
offence, a year's imprisonment for the second, and lifelong imprison- 
ment for the third. 

' 22 January, 1552. 



276 Thomas Cranmer [1552- 

began to pack the House of Commons.* Even so, it 
proved too independent for Northumberland's pur- 
pose. It rejected a treason bill designed to replace 
the expiring act of 1549, and passed another which 
re-enacted in a limited form some of the precautions 
against injustice which the Protector had introduced 
in 1547.' It also threw out a bill of attainder 
against Tunstall, Bishop of Durham ; but North- 
umberland would not be baulked of the bishopric, 
and so Tunstall, who had been confined to the 
Tower on a bogus charge of treason, was deprived 
by a civil commission — a novel extension of secular 
jurisdiction. 

Dimly the nation was beginning to feel that its 
ruler was bent on reckless and selfish aggrandise- 
ment. As early as October, 155 1, tales were told of 
a new coinage to be minted at Dudley Castle bearing 
on its face the bear and ragged staff, Northumber- 
land's badge'; and in 1552 behind closed doors 
men freely ascribed to him the design of aiming at 
the crown * ; while a few may perhaps have per- 
ceived that the chief motive in his zeal for religion 
was to make the Romanist Mary an impossible can- 
didate for the throne of a Protestant kingdom, and 
thus to pave the way for his own advancement. 

*At first this method was only applied to filling up vacancies 
caused by the death of members (see Acts P. C, 1550-2, pp. 400, 

457, 459, 470). 

^ The best-known of these was the clause requiring two witnesses 
in cases of treason. 

^ Acts P. C, 1550-52, p. 377 ; Lit. Remains of Edward VI, ^ pp. 
clxvi., 374; Greyfriars" Chron.^ p. 73. 

* HarUian MS., 353,^. 120-121. 



1553] English Protestantism 277 

The most sincere Reformers began to think it was 
time to slacken the pace. 

"Your Sacred Majesty," wrote Bucer to Edward VI., * 
" has already found by experience how grave are the 
evils which ensued on taking away by force false worship 
from your people, without sufficient preliminary instruc- 
tion. The instruments of impiety have been snatched 
from them by proclamations, and the observance of 
true religion has been imposed by royal command. 
Some have on this account made horrible sedition, 
others have raised perilous dissensions in the State, and 
to this very day wherever they can they either caus( 
new trouble or increase what has already been excited. 
. . . The example of our Lord and of all pious 
princes shows that it is first of all necessary to explain 
to men the mysteries of the kingdom and by holy per- 
suasion to exhort them to take up the yoke of Christ. 
Your Sacred Majesty will perceive that to this end 
all your thoughts and care must be directed, and that 
those are not to be listened to who will that the religion 
of Christ be thrust upon men only by proclamations and 
by laws, and who say that it is enough if the sacred serv- 
ices of Christ are said to the people it matters not how. 
It is greatly to be feared that the enemy actuates men of 
this mind, who strive to hand the government of the 
religion of Christ to men who are both unfit for it and 
who do not suffer themselves to be advised, and who 
thus make way for the greed of men to seize the wealth 
of the Church, and little by little to do away altogether 
with Christ's religion. For those led by this spirit hope 
that when once the church property is confiscated there 

' Bucer, De Regno Christie lib. ii., cap v., pp. 60-61 ; Gasquet 
and Bishop, pp. 299-301. 



278 Thomas Cranmer [1552- 

will be none found voluntarily to consecrate themselves 
to her ministry." SI 

Bucer*s words were written at the end of 15 50, 
and within two years Cranmer was driven into a 
similarly hostile attitude. His opposition to the 
confiscation of the chantry lands profoundly irri- 
tated Northumberland, who now regarded John 
Knox as the godliest of divines. Knox did not 
prove compliant enough to suit as Bishop of 
Rochester and whetstone for Cranmer; but it was 
owing to Knox's exhortations that Cranmer and the 
Council came into conflict over the yet unpublished 
Second Book of Common Prayer. Knox had appar- 
ently been appointed one of the six royal chaplains,* 
four of whom were to be always employed on evan- 
gelical circuits; and before setting out for his sphere 
on the Scottish borders he was commanded to 
preach before the King. He took the opportunity 
to denounce the practice of kneeling at the sacra- 
ment, and so impressed the Council that the print- 
ing of the new Prayer Book, in which that posture 
was enjoined, was stopped. Cranmer was hastily 
ordered to consult with Ridley and Peter Martyr as 

' Canon Dixon (iii., 478-479 note) denies that Knox was ever royal 
chaplain and disputes the arguments of Lorimer and Perry ; but the 
references in the Privy Council Register and Edward VI. 's Journal 
show that two royal chaplains were to preach in 1552 on the Scottish 
borders ; that Knox was employed in this work, receiving £^0 as a 
reward at the end of his year's service on 27 October, 1552, and 
being officially commended for his zeal ; he and the five other chap- 
lains also revised Cranmer's articles for subscription by candidates 
for ordination. [Lit. Remains of Edward F/., pp. 377-378 notes, 
464; Acts of the Privy Council^ 1552-54, pp. 148, 154, 190.) 



1553] English Protestantism 279 

to whether it would not be better to omit the rubric. 
The Archbishop was ready enough to take advice, 
but protested earnestly against the change. Kneel- 
ing had commended itself to the Bishops and other 
learned men who had deliberated on the Book, and 
it had been prescribed by the authority of Parlia- 
ment. Was it wise, he asked, for the Council to 
reverse a decision of Parliament at the bidding of 
turbulent spirits who would find fault with the 
Book were it altered every year? Kneeling, they 
say, is not commanded by Scripture ; neither is 
standing, nor sitting, he replied.* Cranmer's firm- 
ness saved the custom of kneeling, but he could not 
prevent the Council from inserting on their own 
and the King's authority what is known as the 
Black Rubric in such copies of the Second Book of 
Common Prayer as had not already issued from the 
press. This declaration explained that, although 
the gesture of kneeling was retained, there was no 
superstitious adoration of the sacrament implied in 
such an attitude.' 

Another project at which Cranmer had long and 

* This letter is not in any edition of Cranmer's Works ; it is extant 
dated 7 October, 1552, among the Domestic State Papers in the 
Record Office (Ed. VI., vol. xv., No. 15; see Calendar, 1547-80, 
p. 45), and is printed by Perry {Declaration on Kneaiing, p. 77), and 
by Lorimer {Knox in England, p. 103). See also Canon Dixon, iii., 
477, note. 

^ " A runagate Scot," said Dr. Weston to Latimer in 1554, " did 
take away the adoration of worshipping of Christ in the sacrament, 
by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last Communion 
Book ; so much prevailed that one man's authority at that time " 
(Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi., 510.) Townsend and others refer this to 
Alexander Aless, but undoubtedly Knox is meant. 



28o Thomas Cranmer [1552- 

anxiously laboured was brought to naught by the 
opposition of Northumberland and the tendencies 
of the time, and that was the reformation of the 
laws of the church. The mediaeval canon law was 
an elaborate edifice, with the Papacy as the key- 
stone of the arch.* When the Papal jurisdiction in 
England was abolished Canon Law fell into ruin, 
from which it has never recovered. Its decrepit 
state and the absence of any substitute introduced 
the greatest confusion into the legal and moral 
codes ; the marriage laws," for instance, were subject 
to the wildest interpretations, of which Henry VIII. 
had not been slow to avail himself. The confusion 
of the Canonists was viewed with ill-concealed satis- 
faction by civilians, by common lawyers, and by a 
large section of the community which had no desire 
to see ecclesiastical discipline re-established on a 
firm and lasting basis. But such a state of things 
could scarcely commend itself to churchmen, and 
least of all to the Archbishop, who was, under the 
King, the highest authority in the law of the Church. 
The various Acts passed, empowering the King to 
appoint a commission for the reform of the Canon 
Law, had hitherto borne no fruit' ; but Cranmer 



* See Professor F. W. Maitland's Roman Canon Law in England^ 
1899. 

' Every variety of opinion was held at this time on the subject of 
divorce, and Henry VIII. 's matrimonial adventures were by no 
means peculiar to himself, except in so far as he was in a unique 
position for getting rid of his encumbrances. 

3 The Act of 1533 declared that such canons as were not " con- 
trarient to the laws, customs and statutes of this realm, nor to the 
damage and hurt of the King's prerogative royal," should remain in 



15531 English Protestantism 281 

had not been idle. As early as 1544 he had made 
a collection of passages from the Canon Law * ; but 
these were of little constructive use, as they were 
mainly passages asserting the supremacy of the 
Pope over temporal sovereigns and the immunity of 
the clergy from lay tribunals. In October, 1551, 
however, a selection of thirty-two commissioners was 
actually made, and in the following month a com- 
mittee of eight was nominated "to rough hew the 
Canon Law, the rest to conclude it afterwards.*" 
Even then the commission was not formally made 
out, and it was not till February, 1552, that Cranmer 
and his colleagues received authority to proceed 
with the work. As usual, the chief burden fell upon 
the Archbishop, and his principal advisers were Peter 
Martyr, Walter Haddon, the Latin scholar, and Sir 
John Cheke, Edward VL's tutor. Their labours 
were not completed when the three-years' term, im- 
posed by the Act of 1549, expired, and the bill 
introduced in 1552 to renew the commission failed 
to become law, largely owing to Northumberland's 
opposition.' 

force; but the "customs" were sometimes too strange, and the 
*' King's prerogative royal" capable of too liberal an interpretation 
to make this proviso very definite. 

' This collection is extant in Lambeth MS., 1107, and Corpus 
Christi Coll., Cambridge, MS. cccxl., and is printed in Burnet, iv., 
520, and in Cranmer's Works, i., 68-75; several of the passages were 
used by Cranmer in his answer to the Devonshire rebels in 1549. 

^ Edward VI. 's Journal, p. 398. 

' The greatest confusion exists with regard to the history of this 
matter, from which even Canon Dixon and that most accurate of 
writers, Dr. Gairdner, are not free. Canon Dixon states that the 
bill introduced in 1552 became law, but it is not on the Statute 



282 Thomas Cranmer [issa- 

Yet the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticaruniy as 
the work of the commissioners was called, is an im- 
portant illustration of Cranmer's ideas, and its con- 
tents explain why it never received official sanction. 
Both its good and its bad points were repugnant to 
the spirit of the age, and it is doubtful which of the 
two qualities contributed the more to its unpopular- 
ity. It began with an exposition of the Catholic 
faith, and enacted the punishment of forfeiture and 
death against those who denied or blasphemed the 
Christian religion ; for the Church was claimed 
the exclusive right of jurisdiction in such matters, 
the action of the civil magistrate being limited, as 
in the Middle Ages, to the execution of its decrees ; 
and excommunication was said to deprive sin- 
ners of the protection of God and to consign 
them to everlasting damnation. The Church of 
England aspired to hurl those thunderbolts which 



Book ; and Dr. Gairdner {History of the Church, p. 300) concludes 
his account by saying that after all, on 6 October, 1552, the whole 
thirty-two commissioners were appointed and divided into four com- 
panies; but this appointment is really of 6 October, 1551 {Acts P. C; 
1551-52, p. 382). Both mistakes are derived from Strype's Cranmer 
(i. , 388-389). The most accurate statement of the affair is in Nichols's 
Literary Remains of Edward VI., pp. 397-399. The commission 
was thus abortive, and, although a remarkable document entitled Re- 
formatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum was compiled, and although Ed- 
ward in his will urged the completion of the project, the accession 
of Mary put an end to it and the document remained in MS. until 
1571, when, having been edited by Foxe, the Martyrologist, 
it was at length printed ; but it never received any legal 
authorisation either by Parliament or Convocation. It was edited in 
1850 by Dr. Edward Card well. One of the MS. drafts {Harleian 
MS, 426) contains numerous corrections in Cranmer's hand. 



English Protestantism 283 

Popes had so often launched in vain.* Reformers 
commonly work in the spirit of the abuses they 
seek to remove, and few churches have will- 
ingly abandoned the weapons of persecution ; 
but such a pretension ran counter to the spirit of 
Tudor times, not because sixteenth-century states- 
men' were averse to persecution, but because they 
wanted it done by the State and not by the Church. 
In other respects the code was both too liberal 
and too drastic for that or the present time. To re- 
store and invigorate the action of the Church, which 
had suffered so much from the encroachments of the 
State in Henry's reign, Cranmer proposed to revive 
the diocesan synods from which he would not have 
excluded the laity. Divorce was allowed to both 
parties not only on the ground of adultery but of 
desertion, long absence, and cruel treatment ; the 
innocent party was permitted to marry again ; and 
confirmed incompatibility of temper justified separa- 
tion but not divorce. Marriage was thus made less 
rigid, but its sanctity, so long as it lasted, was 
guarded by stringent penalties. Adultery was to be 
punished with imprisonment or transportation for 
life ; if the wife be the offender she forfeits her 
jointure ; if the husband, he restores his wife's dower 
and adds to it half his own fortune. The clergy as 



^ Ref. Legum Eccl., ed. Cardwell, pp. 167-188. 

' Edward VI. himself objected to the bishops, being entrusted with 
these powers of persecution not, as Froude implies (v., 197), because 
a bishop is naturally incapable of justice, but because the bishops of 
that day were some papists, some ignorant, some too old, some 
gf bad repute, etc. {Lit. Remains, pp. 478-479). 



284 Thomas Cranmer [155a- 

guardians of morality were threatened with special 
severity : if a married cleric coipmitted adultery he 
forfeited his benefice and surrendered his whole 
estate for the support of his wife and children ; if 
unmarried he gave all up to his bishop for chari- 
table uses. So that if Cranmer claimed for his order 
great powers, he saddled it also with burdens.* 

The other great scheme with which Cranmer was 
busily occupied during these last years of his power 
did not prove abortive. He had endowed the 
Church with a Bible in English, with her own Eng- 
lish liturgy, and had sought to establish her jurisdic- 
tion ; he now brought forth a confession of faith 
which she and none other professed. As early as 
1 549 he had drawn up a series of articles which he 
compelled applicants for licence to lecture and 
preach to subscribe'; and in 1551 he submitted 
these or another list to his fellow-bishops for 
their opinion. On 2 May, 1552, the Council or- 
dered him to produce these articles and to show 
whether they had been "set forth by any public 
authority or no."' This was, no doubt, a rebuke 

^See Dixon, iii., 352-382 ; Cranmer's scheme was based upon the 
Roman Canon Law, and interwoven with the ' ' agitated formularies 
of the sixteenth century." The attempt to pour new wine into old 
bottles was not successful, though Canon Dixon thinks that if the 
Reformatio had been carried out "the activity and vigour of the 
Church of England would have been raised to a height which it 
has never reached," and "the modern history of the Church of Eng- 
land would have been altogether different." 

' Orig. Letters, i., 71, 76 ; Nichols {Lit. Rem. of Edward VI., p. 
377) doubts whether these articles were the same as the later Forty- 
two. There is no certainty about the matter, but they were prob- 
ably the germ, 3^^^j^ C 1252-54, p. 32, 



1553] English Protestantism 285 

such as Northumberland liked to administer to the 
Archbishop for presumption in acting without his 
permission. The articles were returned to Cranmer 
for revision, a task which he completed by the mid- 
dle of September. He then sent them to Cheke 
and also requested Cecil to consider them well.* A 
month later the Council directed six divines — Harley, 
Bill, Home, Grindal, Perne, and John Knox to re- 
examine them." On 20 November they were re- 
turned with amendments to Cranmer,^ who four 
days later sent them back with the request that they 
might now be authorised by the King, and sub- 
mitted to all the clergy for subscription. "And 
then I trust that such a concord and quietness in 
religion shall shortly follow thereof, as else is not to 
be looked for many years." * 

So wrote Cranmer in the incurable optimism of 
his soul ; but he was not more deceived when 
he hoped to rebuild the jurisdiction of the Church 
than when he thought to bring peace by a creed. 



* Cranmer, Works, ii., 439. 

^ Acts P. C, 1552-54, p. 148. All these divines were men of 
eminence whose lives are recorded in the D. N. B. Harley became 
Bishop of Hereford, Bill, Dean of Westminster, Home, Bishop of 
Winchester, Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Feme, Dean 
of Ely, while Knox was greater than most bishops or deans. The 
Scottish Reformer had before this denounced the rubric on Kneeling 
in the Book of Common Prayer, and now took exception to the 
Thirty-eighth Article, which declared the ritual of the Book to be 
agreeable to the liberty of the Gospel. 

^ Ibid., p. 173, where, curiously enough, the Editor inserts a mar- 
ginal note, "changes in the Prayer Book"; the articles were, of 
course, not yet a part of the Prayer Book. 

* Cranmer, W(>rks^ ii., 141, 



286 Thomas Cranmer [1552- 

At the first attempt to enforce the Articles, in May, 
1553, there were many resisters* ; and from that 
day to this the roll of dissidents has swelled. 
That the Forty-two Articles of Religion or some- 
thing like them should have been evolved was per- 
haps inevitable, for every Church like every party 
must have its platform ; nor need the Articles 
have been a root of bitterness and the seed of strife 
but for the attempt to make them a perpetual bond 
to shackle the minds of men for ever. For, however 
irksome a yoke they may appear, they were not in 
1552 an illiberal interpretation of the English faith; 
and there is this at least to be said for Cranmer and 
his colleagues, that the Forty-two Articles were 
more comprehensive and less dogmatic than any 
subsequent edition of them. 

"The broad soft touch of Cranmer," says Canon 
Dixon, " lay upon them when they came from the fur- 
nace ; a touch which was not retained wholly in the 
recension which reduced them afterwards to Thirty- 
Nine. Nearly half of them are such as are common to 
all Christians ; but even in these the brevity of state- 
ment and the avoidance of controversy is to be admired." ' 

The first controversial article came not first but fifth 
in place. Freedom of the Will was explicitly as- 
serted, and Justification by Faith only was affirmed in 
brief and moderate terms, while the much-contested 



* Grey friars' Chron., p. 77. 

* iii., 520, The literature of the Forty-two and Thirty-nine Arti- 
cles, is of course, enormous. See Dix;on, iii., 520-527, and his x^i' 
^r^nces. 



1553] English Protestantism 287 

Good Works were undefined. It was admitted that 
General Councils might err, but contention was not 
provoked by specifying the errors of other Churches. 
With regard to the sacraments there was less circum- 
spection, and here the Articles seem to be directed 
against the decrees of the Council of Trent.' It was 
no ordinance of Christ that the Eucharist should be 
reserved, carried about, elevated, or adored ; " sacri- 
fices of masses" are pronounced " figments and 
dangerous impostures " ; and five of the mediaeval 
sacraments are not maintained as such. On the 
other hand, it is affirmed that the sacraments are 
not merely marks of profession but effectual signs 
of grace, and there was no article requiring com- 
munion in both kinds. 

For the crooked and disingenuous way in which 
the Articles were presented to the nation the Arch- 
bishop was not responsible. Their title-page bore 
a legend to the effect that they had been " agreed 
upon by the bishops and other learned and godly 
men in the last Convocation at London " — a state- 
ment which was inaccurate in itself and can only 
have been designed to create a false impression.* 



* These decrees were published at various times during the pro- 
longed existence of the Council, some as early as 1547, much to the 
disgust of Charles V. who was endeavouring to pacify the Lutherans 
in Germany. See Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii., cp. viii. 

2 A long array of writers from Heylyn (1661) to Hardwicke (1851) 
have sought to invest these articles with some sort of synodical au- 
thority, but until fresh evidence is produced, the arguments of Canon 
Dixon (iii., 514 etsqq.) against this view must be regarded as conclu- 
sive. They were published with Bishop Ponet's Catechism^ and at the 
same time there were in existence Fifty-four Articles designed to 



288 Thomas Cranmer [1552^ 

They had not as a matter of fact been submitted to 
Convocation, and Cranmer, who had not been con- 
sulted in the matter of this title, rebelled against its 
dishonest implication. He complained to the Coun- 
cil, and was told that all the title meant was that the 
Articles were set forth in the time of Convocation,' 
— an assertion which seems to have been no more 
true than the other. They were, in fact, published 
by the sole authority of the King ; and although 
that was perhaps legally sufficient, it was more than 
ever necessary to pretend an ecclesiastical sanction 
when Northumberland's government was most ob- 
noxious to the great majority of the nation and the 
Church, and when the crisis of his fortunes was 
obviously at hand. For the Articles did not receive 
the royal signature until 12 June, 1553, and within 
a month the King was dead. 

It needed more than sleight of hand to carry 
Northumberland through the storm which he him- 
self had raised. His overbearing temper, unscru- 
pulous ambition, and unprincipled government had 
alienated the nation, the Parliament, the Church, 
and even the Duke's own favourite preachers. 
Knox afterwards spoke of him as "ruling the 
roost by stout courage and proudness of stomach," 
and claimed to have rebuked him to his face.' Dean 



enforce unity of ritual, as the Forty-two were to enforce unity oi 
doctrine ; these Fifty-four have entirely disappeared, leaving scarcely 
a trace behind them. 

' Foxe, vi., 468. 

'Knox's Faithful Admonition, I554» p. 53. "Was David, said 
I, and Hezekiah abused by crafty counsellors and dissembling 
hypocrites ? What wonder is it that a young and innocent king bQ 



1553] English Protestantism 289 

Home wrote that he could not tell whether North- 
umberland was or was not a dissembler in religion * • 
and 

"as for Latimer, Lever, Bradford, and Knox," wrote 
Ridley, " their tongues were so sharp they ripped in so 
deep in their galled backs to have purged them no doubt 
of that filthy matter that was festered in their hearts of 
insatiable covetousness, of filthy carnality and volup- 
tuousness, of intolerable ambition and pride, of ungodly 
loathsomeness to hear poor men's causes and to hear 
God's words; that these men of all others, these magis- 
trates then could never abide. Others there were, very 
godly men, and well learned, that went about by the 
wholesome plasters of God's Word, howbeit after a more 
soft manner of handling the matter; but, alas! all sped 
alike."" 



Of these latter, no doubt, was Cranmer. In De- 
cember, 1 55 1, he was suggested as a possible 
Keeper of the Great Seal during the sickness 
which Lord Chancellor Rich feigned in order to 



deceived by crafty, covetous, wicked, and ungodly councillors? I 
am greatly afraid that Ahithophel is councillor and that Judas bears 
the purse and that Shebna is scribe, controller, and treasurer." 
There is probably imagination as well as recollection here. 

^ Froude (v., 136) erroneously attributes this saying to Knox ; it is 
recorded in Northumberland's letter to Cecil, 7 December, 1552 
(Tytler, ii., 148), when the Duke protests that he had "for twenty 
years stood to one kind of religion, in the same which I do now 
profess"; less than a year later he explained that he had alwavs 
been a Catholic at heart. 

'Ridley, Works, ip. 59; Foxe, vii., 573. 



290 Thomas Cranmer [.55*- 

escape liability for the Duke's illegal acts * ; but the 
appointment was given to the more pliant Bishop 
Goodrich, of Ely. In March, 1552, the Archbishop 
provoked Northumberland's wrath by opposing 
almost alone in the House of Lords an unconstitu- 
tional bill for the deprivation of Tunstall'; and a 
year later, in the last Parliament of Edward VI., he 
again came into collision with the Duke when he 
endeavoured to obtain the sanction of the legislature 
for his Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, North- 
umberland, with his usual arrogance, bade Cranmer 
mind his own business, and threatened the Bishops 
with dire consequences unless they stopped the pre- 
sumption of preachers who had dared in their ser- 
mons to reflect upon the deeds of their superiors. 

So strong was the popular discontent that North- 
umberland feared to meet a freely elected Parlia- 
ment, and the House of Commons which gathered 
in March, 1553, was little more than an assembly of 
the Duke's nominees. To it he thought he might 
safely address language such as Henry VIII. had 
never employed. A year earlier he had threatened 
to confiscate the liberties of the City of London, 
because he thought prices too high; and now he 
proposed to hector the members of Parliament in 

* Cal. of Hatfield MSS., i,, 94; cf. England under Protector 
Somerset^ p. 290 ; the measure to which Rich particularly objected 
was a resolution of the Council that the King's signature alone was 
sufficient to give documents validity ; Edward was only just fourteen, 
and completely under Northumberland's influence. 

' Lord Stourton was the only peer who supported Cranmer in this 
act of justice and independence, although there were fourteen 
bishops present — another gurious instance of Cranmer's " servility." 



I 



15531 English Protestanism 291 

much the same tone. "We need not seem," he 
wrote to the Lord Chamberlain,* " to make account 
to the Commons of His Majesty's liberality and 
bountifulness, in augmenting of his nobles or his 
benevolence shewed to any of his good servants, 
lest you might thereby make them wanton.'* He 
had excellent reasons for concealing the extent to 
which he and his friends had helped themselves 
from the royal domain ; and with characteristic 
meanness he attributed the financial deficit to the 
administration of his rival, Somerset, who had been 
dead twelve months and had fallen from power 
three and a half years before.' Few of the bills 
which he hoped to pass became law, and Parliament 
was dismissed within a month of its meeting. 

A subsidy was, indeed, granted after much de- 
bate,' but it was only to be paid in two years, and 
meanwhile the Duke attempted to fill the exchequer 
by seizing what church plate he could find. The 
excuse was that much of it had been rendered use- 
less by the greater simplicity of ritual now per- 
vading religion, and on 15 February, 1553, an order 
was issued for the appointment of commissioners to 
seize church goods in every shire.* In April and 
May they went forth on their labour of pillage. 

* Northumberland to Darcy (not to Northampton, as Froude says, 
v., 127), on 14 January, 1553, Dojuestic State Papers^ Edward VI., 
vol. xvi., No. 6 ; Tytler, ii., 161. 

* The preamble to the Act for a subsidy, drawn up by North- 
umberland, conveniently expatiates on the dead man's misdeeds t*o 
cover those of the living. 

^See Commons' yonrnals, 7 and ri March, 1553. 
^Acts P. C, 1552-54, p. 265. 



^92 Thomas Cratimer [1552- 

" All such goods," says a contemporary chronicler,' 
"were taken away to the King's use; that is to say, 
all the jewels of gold and silver, as crosses, candle- 
sticks, censers, chalices, and all other gold and silver, 
and ready money . . . and all copes and vest- 
ments of cloth of gold, cloth of tissue, and cloth of 
silver." Cranmer had sought to prevent this spolia- 
tion, for a previous commission had been issued in 
July, 1552,' and in the following November he had 
been charged with neglecting the King's business, 
because he made no haste in the matter. Now a 
more potent safeguard intervened. On 6 July, I553» 
Edward VI. died at Greenwich, and the triumph of 
Mary checked a campaign which had been designed 
to provide the sinews of war for her overthrow. 

That Northumberland had long foreseen this event 
scarcely admits of doubt. Years before Edward came 
to the throne men had spoken of him as not likely to 
live long : an attack of measles and small-pox in 
April, 1552, further weakened an originally sickly 
and consumptive frame: and in March, 1553, he was 
too ill to go down to Westminster Palace to open 
Parliament. The worse the health of Edward grew, 
the wider spread the rumour that Northumberland 
had designs on the crown for himself and his family : 
for the most secretive of governments cannot long 
keep its schemes completely hidden, and in May and 
June the Tower of London was gradually filling with 
prisoners accused of seditious language against the 
Duke. His first nibble at royalty appears to have 

* Wriothesley, Chron., ii., 83 ; Grey friars' Chron., p. 77. 
^Acts P. C, 1552-54, p. 219 ; Cranmer, Works ^ ii.» 440. 



I553J English Protestantism 293 

been a proposal that his only unmarried son, Guilford 
Dudley, should wed Lady Margaret Clifford, a grand- 
daughter of Henry VIII. 's sister Mary, but she was 
too distant in the line of succession ' and was passed 
over to the Duke's brother, Andrew. Guilford 
Dudley was reserved for Lady Jane Grey, of the 
elder branch of the Suffolk line, for which Henry 
VIII. had destined the crown if all his children died 
without issue : Lady Jane's sister was at the same 
time betrothed to Lord Herbert, son of Northum- 
berland's ally, the Earl of Pembroke : and the Duke's 
daughter was married to Lord Hastings, who might 
also have claims on the throne as a descendant of Ed- 
ward IV.'s brother Clarence. Northumberland's 
design was to unite all interests and all claims against 
those of Mary and Elizabeth who were to be ex- 
cluded from the throne on the ground of their illegiti- 
mate birth. 

Lady Jane, he determined, should be the new 
Queen, and his son, her husband, should have the 
crown matrimonial, while he himself remained the 
power behind the throne before which all men 



Henry VII. 



ince Arthur Henry VIII. Margaret= James IV. Mary = Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk 

I 1 1 I ! 

Mary Elizabeth Edward VI. James V. Frances= Henry Grey, £leanor= 

Duke of Suffolk Earl of Cumberland 



I 



Mary Queen 
of Scots 



Lady Jane Grey 
=Gunford Dudley 



Margaret Clifford 
=Agdrcw Dudley 



Catherine 

=1 Lord Herbert 

=a Earl of Hertford 



294 Thomas Cranmer [155a- 

should bow. Never did ambition o'erleap itself in 
so hopelessly illogical, illegal, and unconstitutional a 
fashion. Edward VI., he said, might bequeath the 
crown by will as well as Henry VIII. ; but Henry had 
been expressly given this power by Act of Parliament, 
whereas Edward VI. had not. Moreover, the succes- 
sion of Mary and Elizabeth did hot depend only on 
Henry's will ; for another Act of Parliament had 
provided that unless Henry willed otherwise, Mary 
and Elizabeth should succeed, if Edward had no 
issue. Henry did not will otherwise, and therefore 
Mary's succession was doubly established by Act of 
Parliament as well as by Henry's will. Edward had 
no authority to set aside his father's will, still less to 
override an Act of Parliament. But, putting Henry's 
will and the Act of Parliament aside, and assuming 
that Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimate, the next 
claimant was not Lady Jane, but Mary Queen of 
Scots. Eliminating her, Lady Jane was not even then 
the heir, but her mother, Frances, Duchess of Suffolk. 
Had the Duchess succeeded, the crown matrimonial 
must have gone to the Duke of Suffolk, and not to 
Northumberland's son, and so she was induced or 
compelled to waive her claims in her daughter's 
favour. 

Northumberland's career had, indeed, landed him 
in a quandary from which there was only a desperate 
means of escape. His ambition had led him into so 
many crimes and had made him so many enemies 
that he was safe only so long as he controlled the 
government and prevented the administration of 
justice. He^ould expect no mercy when once his 



J 



1553] English Protestantism ^95 

foes were in a position to bring him to book ; and 
the prospect drove him to make one last frantic 
bid for life and for power. There were other tempta- 
tions which led him to stake his all on a single throw. 
No immediate interference need be feared from 
abroad. The Emperor had too much on his hands 
with war in France and Germany to come to the 
help of his cousin Mary in England. France would 
welcome the success of Northumberland's plot, for 
Mary's accession would mean an alliance between 
England and Spain, and possibly a repetition of the 
disasters of 1521-25, when the same combination had 
produced the rout of Pavia ; and Scotland was now 
little more than a province of France. No woman, 
moreover, had yet reigned over England, and the 
popular impression was that none could — at least 
unless she married and shared the throne with a man. 
Lady Jane was, indeed, as much a woman as Mary; 
but Mary would marry a foreigner, and reduce Eng- 
land to dependence like that of the Netherlands on 
Spain, or Hungary on Austria ; whereas Lady Jane 
had married an Englishman. 

These were not the arguments with which the 
Duke won Edward's consent. " Consider also," he 
said to the Council, "that God's cause, which is the 
preferment of His word, and fear of Papists* entrance 
hath been (as ye have here before always known) 
laid the original ground, whereupon ye, even at the 
first motion, granted your good wills and consents 
thereunto."* These were the motives which ap- 
pealed to the King. To him the Duke painted the 

* Chronicle of Queen jfane, pp. 6-7. Holinshed, iii. , 1068. 



296 Thomas Cranmer [1552- 

horrors of a Romanist reaction, the undoing of the 
glorious work of the Reformation on which Edward 
VI. prided himself more than any one else in the 
kingdom. Should they rebuild the altars of Baal and 
restore the idolatrous mass? Should the elect be 
handed over to the minions of Antichrist ? The 
dying King would not bequeath such woes to his 
kingdom, and without any resistance he concurred in 
Northumberland's scheme. The majority of the 
Council, consisting as it did mainly of the Duke's 
nominees, and ruled, as Chief-Justice Montague^ said, 
by the Duke as he pleased, had no doubt already 
consented ; and the judges and lawyers were now 
called in to give Edward's "devise" a legal form. 
On the 1 2th of June they were brought into the 
young King's presence at Greenwich. They declared 
the attempt to be treason. Northumberland, on 
hearing of their decision, burst into the Council- 
chamber trembling with rage and fury ; he called the 
Chief- Justice a traitor to his face, and said he 
would fight in his shirt with any man in that quarrel. 
The lawyers departed in fear of their lives. On the 
14th they were again summoned before the King. 
With sharp words and angry countenance he de- 
manded the reason for their disobedience to his 
commands ; and as he upbraided them, the lords of 
the Council muttered " Traitors " in their ears. 

Terrorised by threats, the judges and lawyers 
snatched at the excuse offered by the King's promise 

^ Montague's narrative is the authority for the following descrip- 
tion ; it was first printed in Fuller's Church History^ Bk. VIII., 
section 2» 



1553] English Protestantism 297 

to call a Parliament to ratify whatever they did. 
Edward, they considered, would not punish them for 
a crime committed at his behest ; and no such offence 
was known to the law as treason to a future sovereign. 
Parliament would, if it met before Edward died, 
enact their indemnity, while if they refused it might 
attaint them of treason. They preferred the devil to 
the deep sea, and sorrowfully did as Northumber- 
land wished, receiving a formal commission and 
pardon for their proceedings. On the 2ist the *' de- 
vise" was completed; it was signed by the judges 
and lawyers who drew it up, by the greater part of 
the Council, and eventually by a hundred and one 
prominent personages. 

Cranmer's name stands first on the list, but he was 
the last of the Council to sign.' To no one was 
Northumberland less likely to confide his secrets; 

' Many pitfalls await even those students who use original docu- 
ments, and one of them consists in attaching too much value to 
signatures. Documents were not signed in the order in which the 
signatures read, but spaces were left for the signatures which might 
be added later but would in order of precedence stand first. Thus 
Somerset's original signature appears to acts of the Privy Council 
passed in London during his absence in Scotland, the explanation 
being that a space was left for his name, and he signed up these acts 
on his return ; this happened in Cranmer's case above. There is even 
an instance in which signatures were added to a document- two 
years after the document was drawn up, — two years after Gardiner's 
committal to the Tower (30 June, 1548) St. John and Russell were 
required to sign the order of committal. In the meantime they had 
been created Earls of Wiltshire and Bedford, and they began to 
sign under those styles ; then, recollecting that such were not their 
legal signatures in 1548, they crossed them out, and signed as St. 
John and Russell (see the present writer in English Hist. Kev,^ 
xviii. 567-568). 



29^ Thomas Cranmer [1552- 

" his heart," wrote Cranmer, " was not such toward 
me (seeking long time my destruction) that he would 
either trust me in such matter, or think that I would 
be persuaded by him." * Cranmer had never taken a 
very keen interest in politics, and, since the fall of 
Somerset, had gradually withdrawn more and more 
from secular affairs. He does not appear to have 
attended the Council after the 8th of June, 1553, and 
he knew nothing of the Duke*s intrigues. He was, 
however, the first subject of the Crown, and his sig- 
nature was regarded as necessary. So, " when the 
whole council and chief judges had set their hands 
to the King's will, last of all they sent for the Arch- 
bishop, requiring him also to subscribe the will, as 
they had done." ' Cranmer refused : such a deed 
would be perjury, for he had sworn to Mary's suc- 
cession. They, replied the Council, had consciences 
as well as he ; yet they had subscribed the will, 
although they were sworn to Mary ; he must not be 
more particular. Cranmer held out and demanded 
leave to speak with the King in private. This was 
denied him : the Councillors feared he might turn the 
King from his purpose, and Northampton and Darcy 



^ Works, ii., 444. 

' Narratives of the Ref,, p. 225. For a refutation of Cecil's claim 
to have signed last, and for an exposure of the methods in which he 
shifted responsibility from himself to his brother-in-law and other 
intimates, see Tytler, ii., 202-206. The original authorities for this 
extraordinary plot are for the most part printed in Tytler, in John 
Gough Nichols's Literary Remains of Edward VI., pp 561-576, and 
in Chronicle of Queen yane and Queen Mary (Camden Soc). Some 
additional light is shown by the transcripts in the Record Office, 
occasional fragments of which are printed in Froude. 



1553] English Protestantism 299 

were sent to counteract his arguments. To their 
presence Cranmer ascribed his failure; an4 his at- 
tempt to dissuade Edward again brought down the 
wrath of the Duke ; before the whole Council, North- 
umberland declared that it became not the Arch- 
bishop to speak to the King as he did. 

The scene between King and Archbishop was 
painful to both. Cranmer was not told of the judges* 
scruples, but no doubt he used much the same argu- 
ments. He made no impression ; Edward had all 
the Tudor obstinacy. He informed the Archbishop 
that the judges and his learned counsel were of 
opinion that the Act of his father entailing the 
crown could not be prejudicial to him, but that he 
being in possession of the crown could leave it by 
will. " This seemed very strange unto me," writes 
Cranmer, "T)ut being the sentence of the judges and 
other learned counsel in the laws of the realm (as 
both he and his counsel informed me) methought it 
became not me, being unlearned in the law, to stand 
against my prince therein.** Still he demurred till 
the King appealed to him not to " be more repug- 
nant to his will than the rest of the Council were.** 
This reflection on his loyalty in the mouth of a dying 
King grieved Cranmer sore, and then at last he 
yielded. 

The die was now cast, and the Council set to 
work to secure the Tower, raise troops to overawe 
London, and man the fleet. On the 2nd of July, Dr. 
Hodgkin, suffragan Bishop of Bedford, preaching at 
St. Paul's, omitted to pray for the ladies Mary and 
Elizabeth ; and on the following Sunday, Ridley, to 



300 



Thomas Cranmer 



[1552- 



the disgust of his audience, pronounced them bas- 
tards. The death of Edward on the 6th was concealed 
in the hope of securing the person of Mary, by inveigl- 
ing her to London. She came as far as Hoddesdon in 
Hertfordshire, when on the 7th she received secret 
news of her brother's death. Instantly she mounted 
on horseback and rode full speed for Kenninghall in 
Norfolk, whence she wrote to the Council, indig- 
nantly asking why they had not proclaimed her 
Queen. The stratagem had failed ; there was no 
longer need for concealment, and on the loth the 
heralds announced the accession of Queen Jane. To 
Mary the Council wrote a letter, which they all, 
including Cranmer, signed, declaring that she was 
illegitimate and requiring her submission to her law- 
ful sovereign. 

For nine days and no more that ill-fated Queen 
was to reign, and she never ruled. Scarcely had the 
Council replied to Mary's letter when tidings arrived 
that she had been joined by the Earls of Bath and 
of Sussex and proclaimed Queen amid universal re- 
joicings in various parts of the kingdom. On the 
1 2th Northumberland took the field against her, amid 
the blackest of omens ; " the people press to see us,** 
he said to a comrade as he rode through Shoreditch, 
" but not one saith * God speed.' '* Northumber- 
land out of the way, the Council began to turn with 
the tide. While the Duke advanced to Bury St. 
Edmunds, and then, finding that no succours reached 
him, while Mary's forces had swollen to thirty thou- 
sand men, fell back upon Cambridge, his friends and 
victims in I^ondon perceived that the ^ame was up. 




LADY JANE GREY. 
fROM THE PICTURE NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF EARL SPENCER AT ALTHORPE. BY PERMISSION OF 

LORD SPENCER. 



15533 English Protestantism 301 

On the 19th they proclaimed Queen Mary. " Great 
was the triumph here in London," writes an eye- 
witness ; " for my time I never saw the like, and by 
the report of others the like was never seen. The 
number of caps that were thrown up at the procla- 
mation were not to be told. ... I myself saw money 
was thrown out at windows for joy. The bonfires 
were without number, and what with shouting and 
crying of the people, and ringing of the bells, there 
could no one almost hear what another said, besides 
banquetings and singing in the street for joy.*' 

Yet this was Protestant London, where three 
weeks later an attempt to say mass caused a riot ; 
and of the thirty thousand who flocked to Mary's 
standard in Norfolk, most came from East Anglia, 
next to London the most Protestant part of the 
kingdom. The Catholic parts of the realm had no 
time to make their voice heard ; it was Protestants 
who declared against Jane and bore Mary in triumph 
to her throne, and one of them, strange to say, 
thought the Gospel would be plucked away unless 
Queen Mary succeeded ! Indeed it was no question 
between the new and the old religion ; it was not for 
the mass nor the Pope that men threw up their caps 
and lost their ears in the pillory. The sentiment of 
legality, and affection for the Tudor family con- 
tributed to the result ; but neither stirred the people 
to the depths. The passion that moved them was 
detestation of the Duke ; no ruler of England has 
been more bitterly or more deservedly hated. The 
" great devil," " a cruel Pharaoh," " that false Duke," 
**the ragged bear most rank/' "with whonri i§ 



302 Thomas Cranmer [1552-1553] 

neither mercy, pity, nor compassion," are some of 
the epithets hurled at him in a Protestant tract 
printed in London on 13th of July when his triumph 
was still quite possible. His own daughter-in-law, 
Lady Jane Grey, avowed that he was ** hated and 
evil spoken of by the commons," and that *' his life 
was odious to all men." If he succeeded, they said, 
he will "pull and poll us, spoil us, and utterly 
destroy us, and bring us in great calamities and 
miseries." His failure, writes another contemporary, 
was due "partly to the right of .Queen Mary's title, 
and partly to the malice that the people bore him, 
as well for the death of the Duke of Somerset and 
other cruelty by him used." And in more measured 
terms the French ambassador ascribed Mary's victory 
less to love for her than to the great hatred which 
people felt for the Duke who had sought to rule by 
a reign of terror. That the cause of the Reforma- 
tion in England was once linked with his fate was 
perhaps the greatest misfortune that ever attended 
its history, for that association was a stain which 
could only be cleansed in the blood of the Marian 
martyrs. 



CHAPTER XI 
cranmer's character and private life 

THE first Lord Houghton, who took a dilettante 
interest in the Tractarian movement and a 
reflected interest in the Anglican Reformation, has 
described Cranmer as ** the most mysterious person- 
age," and, next to Henry VHL, " the most influential 
factor " in the history of that convulsion/ Cranmer's 
influence on the Reformation is an obvious fact, but 
the mystery of his character disappears before a 
closer study of his environment. In reality his was 
one of the simplest of characters, and the ambiguities 
which obscure his career arise not from the com- 
plexity of his mind but from the contrasts and con- 
tradictions of the age in which he lived. It was the 
age of the Renaissance as well as of the Reformation, 
of the New Monarchy and State-despotism as well 
as of revolt against established forms of belief. 
New forces in literature, commerce, art, religion, and 
politics jostled one another and produced many 
strange and startling combinations ; Calvinists and 
Jesuits might join in preaching tyrannicide while other 

' Prefatory note to Bishop Cranmer's Recantacyons , London 
1885. 

21 



304 Thomas Cranmer 

papists and Protestants proclaimed the sanctity of 
kings. There were many cross-currents in that 
turbulent stream, and it was not possible for man to 
steer a straight and unvarying course. Yet Cran- 
mer, although like a swimmer he was carried hither 
and thither and buffeted by the waves, consistently 
set his face in the same direction. The stream in 
the main was with him, but when caught in the 
eddies he struggled against them ; and if during one 
brief space of a month or more his courage gave 
way, he did no worse than the stubborn Queen 
Mary herself, who in similar time of stress subscribed 
to terms at least as humiliating * as any contained in 
Cranmer's recantations. 

Apart from his recantations, the charges against 
him relate to his conduct as Archbishop, in which 
capacity he did many things, it is said, at variance 
with his private convictions. He continued to say 
mass for instance, under Henry VHL, long after he 
had ceased to believe in the doctrine of Transub- 
stantiation.' The fact does not admit of doubt, and 



^ In 1536 when she acknowledged that the marriage between Henry 
VIII. and her mother was "by God's law and man's law incestuous 
and unlawful," and " utterly refused the Bishop of Rome's pretended 
authority." Like Cranmer's recantations, these phrases, were of 
course, dictated to Mary and reflect more discredit upon the dictator 
than upon the subscriber. 

^Pocock in Troubles Connected with the Prayer-Book (Pref., p. v.) 
after some other contemptuous remarks about the Archbishop, says 
"for those who want to form an estimate of his character, without 
the trouble of wading through the history of the Reformation, it will 
be sufficient to give a reference to Lord Macaulay's account of him in 
his review of Hallam's Constitutional History of England or to an 
article in the Saturday Review for July 25, 1868." It is curious 



Character and Private Life 305 

the offence was perhaps not less than that of reciting 
the Athanasian creed or subscribing the Thirty-nine 
Articles after one's faith has outgrown the bounds of 
these formularies. But Cranmer's official position 
and the constitutional views of his age afford a justi- 
fication which cannot be pleaded to-day by private 
persons. Voluntary resignation of an office on the 
ground that the holder's conscience could not put 
up with its duties was then a thing unknown. Men 
believed with a fervour never since equalled that next 
to the service of God they were created to serve the 
State, while the claims of individual conscience were 
as dust in the balance. Unless the King desired to 
relieve a minister of office, that minister was bound 
to retain it ; he had little voice in the matter himself. 
Ministers then, like civil servants of to-day, had to 
carry out the orders of Government without any 
regard to their own predilections. They were no 
more allowed to relinquish an office of State or a 



to find a High Churchman appealing to Macaulay's verdict on a 
churchman. His prejudices, his "hectoring sentences and his 
rough pistolling ways," as Mr. John Morley calls them, ren- 
der his account of Cranmer the veriest travesty, and admirably 
illustrate Mr. Morley 's saying that "what we find in Macaulay 
is that quality which the French call brutal " (Morley, Critical 
Miscellanies, i., 280, 287). Macaulay's attacks delighted the ex- 
treme Tractarians ; " Why," wrote Hurrell Froude in 1835," do you 
praise Ridley ? Do you know sufficient good about him to counterbal- 
ance the fact that he was the associate of Cranmer, Peter Martyr, 
and Bucer ? N. B. How beautifully the Edinburgh Review has 
shown up Luther, Melanchthon, and Co.! What good genius has 
possessed them to do our dirty work ? " {Remains of R. H. Froude, 
pp. 393-394). A few days before he had written," I hate the Refor- 
mation and the Reformers more and more" (/3., p. 389). 



3o6 



Thomas Cranmer 



seat in the House of Commons * than a man would 
to-day be permitted to resign his duty to serve on a 
jury or his obligation to pay rates and taxes. Hence 
we find the same men in office under Henry VIII. 
and Edward VI., under Mary and Elizabeth. Even 
so upright a man as Sir Thomas More remained 
Lord Chancellor while Henry was pushing his divorce 
from Catherine of Aragon — a measure which More 
abhorred. The principle was Hkewise applied to the 
Church when the King became its Supreme Head ; 
Bishops, whether Catholic or Protestant, give effect 
to legislation whatever its character. Heath, after- 
wards Mary's Chancellor, Tunstall, Day, Thirlby, and 
other Catholics administered the First Act of Uni- 
formity ; they might be deprived or forced to resign, 
but to resign of their own free will would have 
been considered a dereliction of duty to themselves 
and to their King. Their action involved at least as 
great a sacrifice of conscience as Cranmer was re- 
quired to make under Henry VIII., and he held 
higher views than they did of the duty of subjects to 
their King. 

Even from modern ideas it does not follow that 
Cranmer was wrong. For to maintain that a public 
man is to take immediate action on every conviction 

* As is so often the case, the form of this obligation has survived, 
though its spirit has departed. Members of Parliament can only 
" resign " by applying for a nominal office of profit under the Crown, 
the grant of which ipso facto makes their seat void. If the Govern- 
ment declined to grant this office no member could retire. In the 
sixteenth century even a peer could not absent himself from Par- 
liament without royal licence ; then a seat in the House of Lords in- 
volved duties as well as privileges. 



Character and Private Life 307 

is to set up a standard which would make all rule 
impossible. Every Government and especially a re- 
forming government, whether it be an individual or 
a committee, must perforce wear a mask in public 
behind which it gradually forms its own convictions ; 
and it must wear this mask not merely until such 
convictions are formed but until the time has come 
for attempting to carry them out. This wearing a 
mask may seem hypocrisy in religion, but it is a ne- 
cessary part of the price which a Church has to pay for 
connection with the State ; and even in the freest of 
Churches it cannot be completely discarded. More- 
over, if Cranmer could have resigned, the step would 
have made things worse for the cause of Reform ; and 
he chose the better part when he remained at his 
post and successfully laboured to change a system of 
which he disapproved. The argument against him 
is an instance of that bondage to logic and abstract 
ideas which often unfits men of the pen to deal with 
public affairs. 

A similar failure to realise the difficulties of prac- 
tical administration has led to another misconception 
in treating Cranmer's career and that of his associates. 
It has been truly remarked that the knowledge of 
after events has spoiled the writing of history. To 
the man in the study, with a few recorded facts 
before him, things seem vastly plainer and simpler 
than they do to the ruler who has to estimate the 
weight of a number of forces with nothing but his 
own insight and very imperfect knowledge to guide 
him. It is easier to condemn a statesman for trust- 
ing a force that failed than to foretell its failure 



3o8 Thomas Cranmer 

beforehand ; and the man of books is apt to forget 
that to every man of affairs the future is a blank and 
horrible darkness, and that, however much he looks 
before he leaps, he peers into the night. He goes 
farthest, said Oliver Cromwell, who knows not 
whither he goes; and the great Napoleon warned 
his subordinates against taking fancy pictures and 
plans as guides in a country that was really unknown. 
Never can the future have seemed more dim and 
uncertain than it did to the men who guided the 
Reformation, for they were travelling in a country 
unknown and unlike any that man had traversed be- 
fore ; and to assume that they had a clear and defi- 
nite goal before their eyes and a straight and easy 
path at their feet is to sterilise all the teaching of 
history. Yet this is the way in which Cranmer has 
sometimes been treated ; he is represented as having 
under Henry VHI. not merely the First Book of 
Common Prayer in his mind's eye, but the Second, 
and even a third, of which time forbade the produc- 
tion ; and then he is accused of dissembling, because 
he did not resign or secure the immediate adoption 
of reforms which had not yet entered his head. In 
truth it would be as reasonable to accuse the Amer- 
icans of dissimulation in 1765 because they had not 
published the Declaration of Independence before 
they resisted the Stamp Act. Nations and statesmen 
do not as a rule jump to conclusions, but reach them 
under the slow and painful pressure of circumstances. 
Convictions thus obtained are lasting ; and the fact 
that Cranmer's work has stood the test of time 
almost unchanged is astonishing evidence of the 



Character and Private Life 309 

fidelity with which he reflected the deepest feelings 
of the English people. Unless he had struck real 
chords in English hearts, his Prayer Book would not 
be in the mouths of millions to-day. 

This quality, of course, had its defects, and Cranmer 
represented some of the worse as well as the better 
views of the age. He had not abandoned the theory 
that heresy was an offence to be purged in the fire. 
He took an official part in the condemnation of 
heretics, and in his Reformatio Legum Ecclesias- 
ticaruni prescribed for the offence all the penalties 
known in the Middle Ages. At the same time no one 
was more loath to draw the sword than Cranmer. The 
** importunity for blood " with which he is charged in 
the case of John Bocher, has been disproved ; and 
the gentleness of his nature made him a hater of rig- 
our and cruelty. His lenience towards the Romanists 
was often criticised by his friends. *' What," he 
answered, " will ye have a man do to him that is not 
yet come to the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, 
nor peradventure as yet called, and whose vocation is 
to me uncertain ? Shall we perhaps, in his journey 
coming towards us, by severity and cruel behaviour 
overthrow him, and as it were in his voyage stop 
him ? I take not this way to allure men to embrace 
the doctrine of the Gospel.'" On another occasion 
Edward Underbill, the " Hot Gospeller " and servant 
of Edward VI., brought before him the Catholic Vicar 
of Stepney " for that he disturbed the preachers in 
his church, causing the bells to be rung when they 
were at the sermon, and sometimes began to sing in 

^ Narratives ^ p. 246. 



3IO Thomas Cranmer 

the choir before the sermon was half done, and some- 
times challenged the preacher in the pulpit." Cran- 
mer, he says, was ** too full of lenity ; a little he 
rebuked him and bade him do no more so. * My 
Lord,' said I, * methinks you are too gentle unto so 
stout a papist.' * Well,' said he, * we have no law 
to punish them by.* * We have, my Lord,* said I, ' if 
I had your authority I would be so bold to unvicar 
him or minister some sharp punishment unto him and 
such others. If ever it come to their turn, they will 
show you no such favour.* * Well,* said he, * if God 
so provide, we must abide it.* * Surely,* said I, * God 
will never con you thanks for this, but rather take 
the sword from such as will not use it upon His 
enemies.' " * 

More characteristic of the age and more repug- 
nant to modern ideas was the respect which Cranmer 
paid to the State and the King. "This is mine 
opinion and sentence at this present,'* he once wrote 
to Henry VHL, "which nevertheless I do not 
temerariously define, but do remit the judgement 
thereof wholly unto your Majesty."' That Cran- 
mer should have expressed such a sentiment is now 
pronounced to be strange and almost incredible ; but 
it is only strange to those who have failed to read 
the signs of that time, and Cranmer, as usual, only 

^Narratives, p. 157. 

'Burnet, iv., 494 ; Jenkyns, ii., 103. Bonner's answer, which of 
course has been suppressed, is quite as submissive as Cranmer's ; " ita 
mihi pro hoc tempore dicendum videtur salvo judicio melius sen- 
tieniis, cui me prompte et humiliter subjicio.^* Gardiner was abroad 
at the time ; but he complied with all Henry's humours and only 
resisted the comparatively weak government of Edward VI. 



Character and Private Life 311 

blurted out a thought which possessed all minds and 
admitted a practice which all pursued. His attitude 
towards the State was not an idiosyncrasy, but a 
common feature, nor was it merely due to the weak 
man's fear of the strong ; it had in his case a logical 
and conscientious basis, which can scarcely be alleged 
for a similar compliance on the part of Bonner and 
Gardiner. The Renaissance was a many-sided move- 
ment, some of the aspects of which have been unduly 
neglected. It not only turned men's attention back 
to the literature and art and religion of classical 
times, but to the political theory of the primitive 
Church ; and of that political theory Cranmer's views 
were an exact reproduction. To St. Paul the " pow- 
ers that be " were of divine ordination, and dis- 
obedience was not so much a political offence against 
man as it was a sin against God. St. Peter proclaimed 
the Christian's duty of submission "to every ordi- 
nance of man," and even in the seventh century 
Gregory the Great described himself as " dust and a 
worm" before the Csesar at Constantinople.* These 
views were the natural outcome of the political con- 
ditions of imperial Rome * ; they disappeared before 



* Dunning, Political Theories, 1902, p. 159. 

* Cf. A. J. Carlyle, Mediceval Political Theory in the West, 1903, 
i., 210. " In some of the Fathers this conception is developed into a 
theory that the person and the authority of the ruler is so sacred 
that disobedience to him or resistance of his commands is equivalent 
to disobedience and resistance of God Himself. By some of the 
Fathers the divine authority of the State is transferred whole and 
entire to the particular ruler." These phrases accurately describe 
the political theory of the Anglican and Lutheran Reformers of the 
sixteenth century. 



312 Thomas Cranmer 

the growing influence of the Church and before the 
onslaughts of the barbarians who made as great 
inroads upon Roman political theory as they did 
upon Roman territory. There was little room for 
such views in polities governed by Teutonic com- 
mon law or feudal principles ; and the increasing 
power of the Church imposed another check upon 
the despotism of the State. But after the Renais- 
sance, when men's eyes had been opened to the 
scientific precision of Roman law, to the beauty of 
classical literature, and to the primitive purity of the 
Chu^rch, Teutonic common law and feudal theory 
seemed as barbarous as scholastic theology and me- 
diaeval Latinity ; and the decadence of the Church 
weakened the only possible rival of the *' New Mon- 
archy." The jurisdiction of the Pope was regarded 
as a "usurped " authority,^ and the State stood forth 
as the one great divine institution. Hence the pro- 
found veneration paid to its behests, and hence in 
comparison the view which Cranmer took of the 
Church appears to be low. It was not so much that 
he took a low view of the Church as that he took a 
high vie w of the State ; not so much that he wanted 

^ The acceptance of the theory of divine institution for the ' ' powers 
that be " led to controversial dilemmas ; for on that theory an author- 
ity once legitimate must be always legitimate, and it could never be 
abolished on such grounds as that it had ceased to perform its proper 
functions. Hence when Reformers wished to abolish an authority 
they were driven to maintain that it had always been a " usurped " 
authority ; and this, of course, is always the reason put forward for 
the abolition of the Roman jurisdiction, and not the real and his- 
torical reasons. Yet the primacy of Rome was as legitimate and 
natural a development as the Royal Supremacy ; the on© was no 
more usurped than the other. 



Character and Private Life 3^3 

to make the Church secular as to make the State 
religious. Papal theorists had been apt to regard 
the State as the work and sphere of the Devil, and 
the Church as the only institution and temple of God. 
Cranmer saw God in the State as well as in the Church, 
and thought that He manifested Himself in every 
good work of man and not merely in religious observ- 
ances. He would have agreed with Burke's words, 
that the State ** is not a partnership in things sub- 
servient only to the gross animal existence of a tempo- 
rary and perishable nature," but ** a partnership in all 
science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every 
virtue, and in all perfection." He would have added 
*' a partnership in all religion and in all godliness." 

That ideal, impressive though it was, commands 
to-day less sympathy than other of Cranmer's men- 
tal traits. If his humility, when exhibited in rela- 
tion to the King, can be interpreted as subserviency, 
it can hardly be regarded as anything but a Christ- 
ian virtue when made a rule of life by an Archbishop 
of the sixteenth century. It was by example as 
well as by precept, in conduct as well as in doctrine, 
that Cranmer enjoined a return to the greater sim- 
plicity of the age of the Fathers. He alone of 
Henry's Court stood aloof from the scramble for 
wealth and the struggle for power, and after Wolsey 
it was well to show that a prelate could eschew 
pride, ambition, and vainglory. Wolsey exacted ' a 



'See, for example, Venetian Calendar, 1527, p. 84, where it is 
related how Wolsey's attendants had to wait on him on their knees 
as he sat at table, while the King of France " dispensed with such 
exaggerated ceremonies." 



314 Thomas Cranmer 

deference beyond that accustomed to princes; he 
was believed by Campeggio in 1528 to stand between 
the Church and her ruin,' but it may be doubted 
whether the Church would not have been wiser to 
rely on examples like Cranmer*s. He has been re- 
proached with officiating in St. Paul's " with no vest- 
ment, nor mitre, nor cross," ' and these things were 
indeed indifferent to him. 

** For," he wrote, " I pray God never to be merciful 
to me at the general judgment, if I perceive in my heart 
that I set more by any title, name, or style that I write 
than I do by the paring of an apple, farther than it be for 
the setting forth of God's word and will. . . . Even 
at the beginning first of Christ's profession, Diotrephes 
desired gerere primatum in ecclesia, as saith Saint John in 
his last epistle ; and since, he hath had more successors 
than all the apostles had, of whom have come all these 
glorious titles, styles, and pomps into the Church. But 
I would that I, and all my brethren the Bishops, would 
leave all our styles, and write the style of our offices, 
calling ourselves apostolos Jesu Christi ; so that we took 
not upon us the name vainly, but were so even indeed, 
so that we might order our dioceses in such sort, that 
neither paper, parchment, lead nor wax, but the very 
Christian conversation of the people might be the letters 
and seals of our offices, as the Corinthians were unto 
Paul, to whom he saith : Litems nostra et signa apostola- 
tus nostri vos estis." * 

To this profession Cranmer strove to be faithful 
throughout ; and the simplicity of his life was the 



* Z. and P., iv., 4898. 'Dixon, iii., 492, n. ' Works^ ii., 305. 



Character and Private Life 3^5 

outward sign of the simplicity of his character. He 
amassed no wealth and received no grants from the 
King except one which Dr. Butts solicited for him 
without the Archbishop's knowledge ; and in 1 552 he 
told Cecil he had more trouble to live as Archbishop 
than he had when a scholar at Cambridge ; he feared 
" stark beggary '* more than the temptations of 
wealth.* Greedy courtiers, anxious to see episcopal 
lands go the way of monastic endowments, accused 
him of avarice ; they earned for their pains a sting- 
ing rebuke from Henry VHI.,' and were only par- 
doned through the intercession which Cranmer was 
always happy to make on behalf of his personal ene- 
mies. On one occasion Cromwell had up a priest 
from the country for slandering Cranmer as an ig- 
norant ostler. The Archbishop refused to have him 
punished ; the priest, he told Cromwell, was not the 
first by five hundred who had called him such, and 
he gently brought the man to a better mind by 
showing him his own ignorance, and then sent him 
home in peace.' There was no trace of rancour in 
Cranmer ; his friends spoke of his " incredible sweet- 
ness of manners," his enemies commended his cour- 
tesy,* and his forgiving disposition became a proverb. 
" Do my Lord of Canterbury a shrewd {i. e,y an evil) 

^ Works, ii., 437. 

' The story is told in Narratives, pp. 260-263. Henry's declara- 
tion on this occasion is said by Morice to have prevented the in- 
troduction into Parliament of several bills for the confiscation of 
bishoprics which had been prepared. It is a mistake to suppose 
that all Church spoliation was due to the King. 

* Narratives, pp. 270-272. 

* Bishop Cranmer' s Recantacyons, p. 3. 



3i6 Thomas Cranmer 

turn," writes Shakespeare, " and he is your friend 
for ever." ' '' My Lord," said Heath to the Arch- 
bishop one day, " I now know how to win all things 
at your hand well enough." *' How so?" asked 
Cranmer. ** Marry," replied Heath, " I perceive 
that I must first attempt to do unto you some nota- 
ble displeasure, and then by a little relenting obtain 
of you what I can desire." Cranmer was a little 
nettled at this dissection of his character. "You 
may be deceived," he said to Heath, " yet I may 
not alter my mind and accustomed condition, as 
some would have me do."' 

Therein at least Cranmer read himself aright ; he 
was utterly incapable of assuming that sphinx-like 
impenetrability which Henry VHI. and Elizabeth, 
not to speak of later statesmen, found so valuable 
an asset. He did not exactly wear his heart on his 
sleeve, for Morice tells us that he could put on a 
cheerful countenance when really sick at heart ; but 
this reserve broke down in intimate circles, and few 
were misled. In him there was no guile ; his varia- 
tions were not calculated, but the faithful reflex 



1 Shakespeare's Henry VIII., Act V., Scene ii. The King says : 

" The common voice, I see, is verified 
Of thee, vi^hich says thus, ' Do my Lord of Canterbury 
A shrewd turn, and he is your friend for ever.' " 

' Narratives, pp. 245-246 : " This singular freedom from every 
particle of rancour, and literal fulfilment of the precept to forget 
and forgive seemed so incredible to Macaulay, who was a Scotch- 
man by descent and a critic by profession, that he has distorted 
Cranmer's placable disposition into a reproach." — Chester Waters, 
Chesters of Chicheley, p. 386. 



k 



Character and Private Life 317 

of developing convictions. He was never a victim 
of that infirmity which leads men to pretend that 
they have always held the same inflexible principles. 
** This I confess of myself/' he wrote in his published 
answer to Dr. Richard Smith, " that ... I was 
in that error of the real presence, as I was many 
years past in divers other errors, as that of transub- 
stantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests 
in the mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, and many 
other superstitions and errors that came from Rome. 
. . . For the which, and other mine offences in 
youth I do daily pray unto God for mercy and par- 
don, saying Delicta juventutis mece et ignorantias 
meas ne meminerisy Doniine. Good Lord, remember 
not mine ignorances and offences of my youth ." * 

Assuredly Cranmer spared no pains to remedy the 
"ignorances" of his youth. ** Commonly," says 
Morice, " if he had not business of the Prince's or 
special urgent causes before him, he spent three 
parts of the day in study as effectually as if he had 
been at Cambridge." ' He was one of the most learned 
theologians of his age ; and when it was hinted to 
Ridley that he and not Cranmer was really the 
author of the answer to Gardiner on the Eucharist, 
Ridley replied that it was beyond his capacity to 
write such a book and that Cranmer " passed him no 
less than the learned master his young scholar." ' 
His theological learning was one of his titles to 
Henry's favour. " For at all times when the King's 
Majesty would be resolved in any doubt or question 
he would but send word to my Lord overnight, and 

' Works y i,, 374. '^Narratives, p. 250. ' Foxe, vi., 436. 



31 8 Thomas Cranmer 

by the next day the King should have in writing 
brief notes of the doctors' minds, as well divines as 
lawyers, both ancient, old and new, with a conclusion 
of his own mind ; which he could never get in such 
a readiness of none, no, not of all his chaplains and 
clergy about him, in so short a time. For being 
thoroughly seen in all kinds of expositors, he could 
incontinently lay open thirty, forty, sixty or more 
somewhiles of authors, and so, reducing the notes of 
them altogether, would advise the King more in one 
day than all his learned men could do in a month." * 
Indisputable evidence of Cranmer's theological 
attainments is afforded not merely by the testimony 
of friends and foes, but by the extent of his library, 
his writings and his commonplace books.' His collec- 



* Narratives, p. 249. 

* These commonplace books are now among the Royal MSS. in 
the British Museum (7 B., xi. and xii.) ; they are mostly in Morice's 
hand, with marginal notes, etc., in Cranmer's. These volumes seem 
to have been secured by Dr. Stephen Nevinson, Parker's commis- 
sary (Canon Mason styles him "a certain Dr. Nevison"; he was 
first cousin to Cranmer's commissary, Dr. Christopher Nevinson, 
who died in 1551, cf. D. N. B., xl., 308, and L. and P., 1543, ii., 
p. 330). From him Cecil vainly attempted to obtain them in 1563 
(see Parker Correspondence, pp. 180-195, 319) ; they belonged in 
1659 to Mr. John Theyer of Cooper's Hill, and in the reign of 
Queen Anne were purchased for the royal collection by Bishop 
Beveridge for ;^50 (Casley, Cat. of Royal MSS., p. 125). Six or 
seven other volumes were discovered in 1563 in the possession of 
John Herd, Prebendary of Lincoln (Le Neve, Fasti, ii. , 162 ; Cooper, 
AthencB Cantab., ii., 40) ; these seem to have been lost, as do others, 
for nothing is known of the volumes "about the serious affairs of 
the Prince and the realm committed unto Bishop Crannjier by 
Henry VIII. and Edward VI.," which Morice says he was pain- 
fully occupied in writing for twenty years {Lansdowne MS., cviii., 



Character and Private Life 319 

tion of books was broken up at his death, but no fewer 
than three hundred and fifty printed books and a hun- 
dred manuscripts have been traced ; his Hbrary was 
more extensive and vastly more valuable and select 
than that of Cambridge University when Cranmer was 
there as an undergraduate. Roger Ascham says he 
found among Cranmer's books " many authors which 
the two universities could not furnish " ' ; and they 
were no mere ornaments or furniture of his rooms, 
but furniture of his mind. There were two Hebrew 
Bibles, and one of them is interleaved with a Latin 
translation made by Cranmer with his own hand. 
There was an almost complete set of the Greek and 
Latin Fathers and the best of the mediaeval school- 
men. With modern writers such as Erasmus he 
was, as a matter of course, familiar ; ** I have seen," he 
writes in 1537, "almost everything that has been 
written and published either by CEcolampadius or 
by Zwinglius," ' and with the writings of Luther and 
Melanchthon he was yet more conversant. His com- 
monplace books in the British Museum Library also 
contain extracts from Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Brenz, 



8). The bulk of Cranmer's library was secured by Lord Arundel, 
Queen Mary's Steward of the Household ; he bequeathed the 
volumes to his son-in-law, Lord Lumley, on whose death in 1609 
they were bought by Prince Henry, the eldest son of James I. Sev- 
eral of them bear the signatures Tho.Cantuariensis, Arundel, Lum- 
ley. Most of the volumes which have been traced are now in the 
British Museum, a few are at Oxford and at Cambridge, and others 
are in private hands. (See Ed. Burbidge, Liturgies and Offices of 
the Church, 1885, Pref., pp. xvii.-xxxii., where a list is given.) 

^Todd, Cranmer, ii., 525. 

' Works, ii., 344; 



320 Thomas Cranmer 

Eck, and Pirckheimer — divines of all shades of opin- 
ion, ancient and modern, Latin and Greek. Latin, 
of course, he spoke and wrote with ease ; Hebrew we 
know that he read, from his translation of the He- 
brew Bible ; Greek he may have acquired after he 
left Cambridge, and the discovery that eidooXov, 
whence came idolatry, meant the same as imago^ 
made a great impression on his mind. When Rob- 
ert Estienne published his great Greek Testament 
at Paris in 1550,* Cranmer made haste to acquire 
this Editio regia, as it was called, and used it with 
effect against Gardiner in his work on the Eucharist, 
published in 155 1.' Besides these three ancient 
tongues, all indispensable to a Reformer whose one 
test of truth was the Scriptures, Cranmer knew 
French and Italian. He translated Italian news- 
letters into English for Henry VIII. *s benefit,' and 
it is scarcely possible that he could have wooed 
Osiander's German niece without some knowledge 
of the German tongue. 

A lover of learning himself, Cranmer was a patron 
of learning in others. He continued Warham*s 
beneficence to Erasmus, and procured a living and 
a canonry for John Leland, one of the greatest of 
English antiquaries. Erasmus repaid him with a 
letter and Leland with one of his well-known enco-i 
miums in verse, in which he styles the Archbishop 
eximium decus piorum,^ Through him John Sleidan, 

* Cf. Cambridge Modern History^ i., 604. 

2 Works ^ i., 24. ^ Ibid., ii., 332. 

* It is printed in Strype, Cranmer, i., 599; cf. Diet. Nat. Biogr,^, 
xxxiii,, 14 (the canonry at Oxford, for which no date is there given, 
was conferred on Leland on 26 March, 1543). 






LLl 




o 


o 


< 


z 


-1 


< 


< 


s 


Q. 


o 


Q 


cc 


z 




< 






d 


I 




o 


'" 


cc 


K 


3 
I 


< 
111 
> 


o 


Ul 




I 


I 


1- 


1- 


i- 


u 


3 


CQ 


o 



Character and Private Life 321 

the German historian,* was granted a pension by Ed- 
ward VI.; and Tremellius, the Hebraist, described 
Lambeth under Cranmer's rule, as " a house of public 
entertainment to all people of learning and piety." * 
No foreign divine of note came to England in Ed- 
ward VI. 's reign without being lodged under Cran- 
mer's roof until established elsewhere. 

Nor was his patronage and zeal for education lim- 
ited to eminent scholars; he would extend the benefits 
of education to every child of ability, whether he were 
a ploughman's son or a peer's. When the Cathedral 
school at Canterbury was being refounded, some of his 
fellow commissioners * maintained that none but gen- 
tlemen's sons should be admitted. Cranmer de- 
nounced the idea; "for," said he, "poor men's 
children are many times indued with more singular 
gifts of nature, which are also the gifts of God, as 
with eloquence, memory, apt pronunciation, sobriety, 
with such like, and also commonly more given to 
apply their study than is the gentleman's son, deli- 
cately educated." The ploughman's son, it was 
argued, should follow the plough ; only gentlemen's 
sons were meet to " have the knowledge of govern- 
ment and rule in the commonwealth " : there was as 
much need of ploughmen as of other classes, " and all 
sorts of men may not go to school." " I grant," 



* His real name was Johann Philipson ; cf. Baumgarten Ueber 
Sieidafi's Leben^ Strassburg, 1878, and SleidarHs Briefwechsely 
Strassburg, 1881. 

' Todd, Cranmer^ ii., 207; Cooper, Athence, i., 425. 

' The chief of them was Sir Richard Rich who, when he founded 
Felsted School in Essex, perhaps remembered Cranmer's words. 



322 Thomas Cranmer 

replied Cranmer, " much of your meaning herein, as 
needful to a commonwealth ; but yet utterly to ex- 
clude the ploughman's son and the poor man's son 
from the benefit of learning, as though they were 
unworthy to have the gifts of the Holy Ghost be- 
stowed upon them as well as upon others, is as 
much as to say that Almighty God should not be at 
liberty to bestow his great gifts of grace upon any 
person, nor nowhere else but as we and other men 
shall appoint them to be employed according to our 
fancy ahd not according to his most godly will and 
pleasure; who giveth his gifts both of learning 
and other perfections in all sciences unto all kinds 
and states of people indifferently ; even so doeth he 
many tjmes withdraw from them and their posterity 
again those beneficial gifts if they be not thank- 
ful. If we should shut up into a strait corner the 
bountiful grace of the Holy Ghost, and thereupon 
attempt to build our fancies, we should make as per- 
fect a work thereof as those that took upon them to 
build the tower of Babylon ; for God would so pro- 
vide that the offspring of our best born children 
should peradventure become most unapt to learn 
and very dolts, as I myself have seen no small num- 
ber of them very dull and without all manner of 
capacity. . . . To conclude, the poor man's 
son by painstaking for the most part will be learned 
when the gentleman's son will not take the pains to 
get it. . . . Wherefore if the gentleman's son be 
apt to learning, let him be admitted ; if not apt, let 
the poor man's child apt enter his room." * Cranmer 

' Narratives^ pp. 274-275. 



Character and Private Life 323 

carried his point with regard to Canterbury school, 
but the views he contested still flourish among the 
backward classes in England. And another theory 
has not disappeared against which Cranmer protested 
when he sought to save the schoolmaster of Ludlow 
from being deprived of his school on abandoning 
holy orders; *'the man's priesthood," he said, "was 
no furtherance but rather an impediment to him in 
the applying of his scholars." * 

The same generosity of disposition appears in 
Cranmer's relations with his dependents and friends. 
"There never was," says Morice, "such a master 
amongst men, both feared and entirely beloved ; 
for, as he was a man of most gentle nature, void of 
all crabbed and churlish conditions, so he could abide 
no such qualities in any of his servants." ' He al- 
ways retained a grateful recollection of the kindness 
shown him by his old college at Cambridge, and 
endeavoured to repay it in after years when his influ- 
ence was useful to the society and to its individual 
members.^ When Welbeck Abbey was dissolved, 
the Archbishop purchased its tithes of Aslacton and 
Whatton and gave them to his nephew,Thomas, who 
had inherited the family estates ; and he has been 
accused of nepotism in promoting his brother Ed- 
mund to the Archdeaconry of Canterbury. But 
therein he was only following his predecessors, 



^ IVor^s, ii., 380; for Ludlow School see Leach's English 
Schools, 1896, i., 45-46, 49 ; ii., 185, 322. 
' Narratives^ p. 268. 
* Cf. Works ^ ii., 247, 303. 



3H Thomas Cranmer 

Chicheley, Bourchier, and Warham,* and his conduct 
compares favourably with that of Warham and Wol- 
sey. For Warham bestowed the preferment on a 
nephew who was not in priest's orders and therefore 
required a papal dispensation from the canonical 
prohibition to enable him to hold the office; and 
Wolsey endeavoured to obtain the rich Bishopric of 
Durham for his illegitimate son while he was yet a 
minor ; he failed in this, but secured for the youth 
in his teens a deanery, four archdeaconries, five pre- 
bends, and a chancellorship.' Beside this flagrant 
example Cranmer's conferment of one archdea- 
conry on a brother who fulfilled all the canonical 
requirements seems harmless enough, and it is the 
only charge of the kind that was ever laid at his 
door. 

A different accusation was that he wasted the 
lands of his see by granting them away on easy 
leases, but Morice has successfully vindicated his 
master's conduct. It was really designed to preserve 
the cathedral endowments, for unless he had turned 
the edge of the lay appetite for ecclesiastical property. 



^ Chester Waters's account of Edmund Cranmer in Chester of 
Chicheley ; Edmund fled on Mary's accession and died abroad in 
1571 ; his descendants were numerous ; see the pedigree. 

' The deanery was Wells, 1526 : the archdeaconries were Norfolk, 
1523, Suffolk, 1526, York, 1523, and Richmond, 1523 ; the chan- 
cellorship was of Salisbury, 1523; and the prebends were two in 
York, 1523, two in Southwell, and one in Lincoln, 1522 ; see Le 
Neve, Fasti, ed. Hardy, i., 153; ii., 187, 484, 489, 651; iii., 134, 141, 
188, 216, 438, 441; for each of these preferments a complaisant Pope 
had to grant two dispensations, one on account of the youth's ille- 
gitimacy, the other on account of his minority. 



Character and Private Life 3^5 

courtiers would probably have secured permanent 
grants instead of temporary leases. He did, indeed, 
yield to Henry's demand for the manor of Otford by 
way of exchange ; but to resist in such a case was 
clearly out of the question. "For," writes Morice, 
*• as touching his exchanges, men ought to consider 
with whom he had to do, especially with such a 
prince as would not be bridled, nor be against-said 
in any of his requests." * 

With respect to his family life, we have but the 
scantiest details. There is no doubt that his 
relations with his domestic circle were as happy as 
external conditions would permit. Scandal was busy 
with one of Cranmer's sisters' ; but it never touched 
the Archbishop himself, except in so far as to 
tell that his affection for his wife drove him to 
curious expedients to retain her company during the 
dark days of the Six Articles.' It has been thought 



* Narratives^ p. 266. Miss J. M. Stone {Queen Mary, p. 385) 
quotes this sentence, omitting "as touching his exchanges," con- 
nects it with Cranmer's phrase about " not temerariously defining, 
etc.," and distorts it into an acknowledgment that Cranmer sur- 
rendered all his principles ! "Morice," she says, "unconsciously 
deprived him of every vestige of fidelity Xo principle.'* 

' See above pp. 6, 148. 

3 The story was that Cranmer carried her about in a chest with 
holes bored into it to admit the air; on one occasion, when the chest 
was placed upside down, the lady had to make her presence known 
by screams. The story first occurs in Nicholas Harpsfield's Treatise 
of the Pretended Divorce of Catherine of A r agon, which was written 
after Cranmer's death; the other early reference to it occurs* in 
Bishop Cranmer's Recantacyons (see below, pp. 361-2), which may 
also have been written by Harpsfield. Neither work was published 
till the nineteenth century, the Divorce by Pocock in 1878, and the 



326 Thomas Cranmer 

strange that nothing is heard of her during Cran* 
mer's troubles under Queen Mary, and that the only 
efforts on his behalf appear to have been made 
by his sister ; but the reason is that his wife was 
far away in Germany. The Archbishop had warned 

Recantacyons by Dr. Gairdner in 1885; but copies of the former were 
circulated in MS. and the story got abroad; it was published in 
Nicholas Sanders's De Origine Sckismatis Anglice in 1585. It was 
contradicted by Sir John Harington on the authority of Mrs. 
Cranmer's daughter-in-law, who was related to Lady Harington. 
(Harington, Nuga Antiques^ ed. 1804, iii., 16; Harington was him- 
self grandson of Cranmer's "loving friend," Sir John Markham; see 
Cranmer, Works ^ ii., 358, and D. JV. B., xxiv., 385; Catherine 
[Rogers], the wife of the Archbishop's only son, was cousin of Sir 
Edward Rogers, Queen Elizabeth's Controller of the Household, and 
Sir Edward's granddaughter was Harington's wife.) Subsequently, 
Parsons, the famous Jesuit, repeated the story in his Treatise of the 
Three Conversions of England, 1603, saying that this same daughter- 
in-law of the Archbishop told it to her friends from one of whom he 
heard it. This evidence is not so good as Harington's, and the story thus 
rests upon Harpsfield's statement, which was contradicted by persons 
in a better position to know than Harpsfield himself. Absolute 
proof or disproof is not forthcoming. At the same time I cannot 
find any original authority for the universally accepted story that 
Cranmer sent his wife back to Germany after the enactment of the 
Six Articles. There is no allusion to it in the proceedings at Cran- 
mer's trial; there he was accused of having kept his wife secretly 
during Henry's reign and brought her out in Edward VI. 's, — charges 
which Cranmer admitted {^^^Works, ii., 219, 550); and the language 
used does not suggest that she left England in the interval. 

By his first wife, Joan, Cranmer had one child who died at birth; 
by his second he had two daughters and one son. The son, 
Thomas, disgraced his father's name by loose living in Elizabeth's 
reign, dissipated what property he had, and died without issue 
in November, 1598, being buried on the 14th of that month in 
St. Andrew's, Holborn. His widow, Catherine [Rogers], had three 
husbands; the first was Hugh Vaughan {d. 1576), the second was 
Thomas Cranmer, and the third was one Randall; she eventually 



I 



Character and Private Life 327 

his friends to flee early in the reign, and his natural 
affection would ensure that his wife and children 
should be the first to be placed out of the reach 
of danger. His wife was a heretic like himself and 
might well have been joined to the army of feminine 
martyrs who were sent to the stake by Queen Mary. 

sank into poverty and distress, five shillings and eleven pence being 
collected for her benefit in St. Olave's, Old Jewry, in 1607. Of the 
Archbishop's two daughters, one, Anne, died young and unmarried; 
the other, Margaret, married Thomas Norton (1532-84), a well- 
known law)'er and politician, but more famous as the joint author 
of Gorboduc, the earliest-known tragedy in English blank verse 
(see Diet. Nat. Biogr., xli., 221-225). On his wife's death, Norton 
married her cousin Alice, daughter of Archdeacon Edmund Cranmer; 
he had no issue, so that the Archbishop's line died out with his 
children, and the various claims since put forward to descent from 
him are all baseless. (The pedigree of the Cranmers of Mitcham, 
Surrey, printed in Manning and Bray's Surrey, vol. iii., Appendix, 
and tracing their descent from the Archbishop, has been conclusively 
proved to be a fabrication by Mr. Chester Waters.) 

The Archbishop's widow married in Germany, perhaps in 1556, 
as her second husband, Edward Whitchurch, the Protestant printer of 
Cranmer's Bible and the First Book of Common Prayer, who had fled 
probably to Germany on the accession of Queen Mary (see Diet. 
Nat. Biogr., Ixi., 30). He died in 1561, and in 1564 she took a 
third husband, Bartholomew Scott, a justice of the peace for Surrey. 
She died about 1571; she does not appear to have had any issue by 
any but her first husband. 

With regard to the Archbishop's personal appearance we have his 
portraits and Foxe's description (viii., 43): " he was of stature mean 
i. e., medium), of complexion he was pure and somewhat sanguine, 
having no hair upon his head at the time of his death [it had been 
shaved by a barber at his degradation, a month before]; but a long 
beard, white and thick [which he had let grow since Henry VIII.'s 
death]. He was of the age of sixty-six when he was burnt ; and yet 
(although) being a man sore broken in studies, in all his time never 
used spectacles." The " purblind " or short sight, of which Morice 
speaks, was as usual more lasting than long sight. 



328 Thomas Cranmer 

That the Archbishop himself stood his ground 
is one among many proofs of deliberate courage. 
He used to tell Morice that the brutality of his early 
schoolmaster had destroyed the "audacity" with 
which he had been by nature endowed, and that 
he had never been able to repair the loss. The ex- 
planation is not convincing. Cranmer was undoubt- 
edly of that shrinking, sensitive nature which usually 
acts like a red rag on bullies, but every now and 
then touches a finer chord in the strong man's heart, 
as it did in that of Henry VHI. But he was no 
coward ; he had, indeed, none of the hardihood 
which ignorance breeds, nor the courage which 
springs from an incapacity to realise danger and 
suffering. Sensitive nerves, imagination, and a 
somewhat slow and hesitating mind gave Cranmer 
at times the appearance and feeling of weakness ; but 
when once his mind was made up his courage was 
not found lacking. He alone, so far as we know, 
tried to save the monks of Sion from the block ; 
he alone interceded for Fisher and More, for Anne 
Boleyn and for the Princess Mary, for Thomas 
Cromwell and Bishop Tunstall. He told Henry VIH. 
that he had offended God, and Cromwell that the 
Court was setting an evil example. He maintained 
almost unaided a stubborn fight against the Act of 
Six Articles and resisted longer than any one else 
the Duke of Northumberland's plot. He refused to 
fly before danger at Mary's accession ; and for two 
and a half years withstood without flinching the 
pressure of a sixteenth-century prison. If then 
for a month he wavered between his duty to the 



Character and Private Life 329 

State and that to his conscience; if finally, he tried 
to concede that impossible change of belief which 
his inquisitors required, he redeemed his fall by a 
heroism in the hour of death to which history can 
find few parallels. 



CHAPTER XII 

IN TIME OF TROUBLE 

QUEEN Mary was borne to the throne on the 
flood-tide of reaction against a tyrannous gov- 
ernment, and the first acts of her reign did not utterly 
belie the hopes which the nation had conceived. 
The first words of the first Act of her first Parlia- 
ment declared that " the state of every king, ruler, 
and governor of any realm, dominion, or common- 
alty standeth and consisteth more assured by the 
love and favour of the subjects towards their sover- 
eign ruler and governor than in the dread and fear 
of laws made with rigorous pains and extreme punish- 
ment." It recalled the fact that many ** honourable 
and noble persons . . . had of late (for words 
only, without other opinion, fact, or deed) suffered 
shameful death ; " and echoing the words and senti- 
ments of Somerset's repeal of the treason laws, it 
proceeded to abolish those which Northumberland 
had re-enacted after the Protector's fall. Another 
echo of the " good Duke's " days was heard when 
Mary announced that she graciously meant " not to 
compel or constrain other men's consciences other- 
wise than God shall put in their hearts." * 

^ Acts of the Privy Council^ 1552-54, p. 317. 

330 



[I553-I555] In Time of Trouble 331 

There were some to whom no clemency could 
extend, and Northumberland, with his intimate abet- 
tors, was promptly sent to the scaffold. The Duke 
did almost as much harm to the Reformation by his 
death as he had done during his life. This ** most 
intrepid soldier of Christ," one of " the two most 
shining lights of the Church of England," confessed 
that he had been an evil liver and had done wickedly 
all the days of his life, that for sixteen years he had 
been no Christian, and that all the woes which the 
realm had endured of late had been due to the Re- 
formation ^ ; *' there were," says a letter of the time, 
" a great number turned with his words." A dra- 
matic touch is given to the story of his death by the 
thrice-repeated statement of an eye-witness that the 
Duke of Somerset's sons stood by'; and according 
to the Spanish ambassador Northumberland asked 
their forgiveness for having wrongfully and falsely 
procured their father's death.' But the real tragedy 
consisted in the fact that Northumberland's fall 
dragged down better men than he. 

Since the 20th of July, when he had attended the 
Council and signed its letter acknowledging Mary 
as Queen, Cranmer had remained undisturbed at 

* The fullest report of Northumberland's confession is in Brit. 
Mus., Harleian MS., 284, f. 127 (printed in Tytler, ii., 230-232) ; 
two others are printed from Harleian MS. 353, in the Chron. of 
Queen Jane, p. 21 ; a fourth and fifth are in Cotton MS., Titus, B. 
ii., and Royal MS. y 12 A., xxvi. 

' Chron. Queen yane, pp. 19, 20, 21. 

3 Renard, quoted in Froude, v., 36 ; Northumberland's tool, Sir 
Thomas Palmer, also confessed, that he had sworn to evidence 
against Somerset which Northumberland had fabricatedi 



332 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

Lambeth. On the 8th of August he officiated at 
the obsequies of Edward VI., who was buried ac- 
cording to the rites of his Second Book of Common 
Prayer.* He was not blind to the perils in which he 
stood ; and he, like Ridley, warned his friends to fly 
from the plague and get them hence, for the time of 
tribulation was at hand, and the abomination spoken 
of by Daniel the Prophet was set up in the Holy 
Place." Many took heed ; four bishops, five deans, 
four archdeacons, and scores of doctors and preach- 
ers escaped from the wrath to come.' With them 
went numbers of foreign divines; Peter Martyr, 
John a Lasco, the Dutch Protestants in London, 
and the Flemish weavers at Glastonbury struck 
their tents and sought safety abroad,* but Cranmer, 
Latimer, and Ridley stood by their posts. Cranmer 
was still Archbishop, and it would ill become him, 
he said, to fly ; he would shew that he was not afraid 
to own all the changes that were made by his means 
in religion during the reign of Edward VL^ 

" Therefore," wrote Ridley a little later, " if thou, 
O man of God, do purpose to abide in this realm, 

* Grey friars^ Chron., pp. 82-83. 

' See Ridley's Piteous Lamentation (Parker Soc), pp. 62-63, and 
Cranmer's Works ^ ii., 441-442, 444-445. 

* See list in Strype's Cranmer^ i., 449-450. 

* Peter Martyr and others of these foreigners obtained passports, 
but it seems rather far-fetched to adduce this as a proof that Mary 
" had no desire to persecute " (Gairdner, p. 321). Peter Martyr had 
only come by official invitation, and it would have been a flagrant 
violation of public decency to persecute him ; moreover, most of 
these men were not Mary's subjects, and proceedings against them 
might have involved awkward disputes with other powers, 

* Strype, Cranmer^ i., 449. 



1555] In Time of Trouble 333 

prepare and arm thyself to die ; for both by Anti- 
christ's accustomable laws and these prophecies, 
there is no appearance of any other thing except thou 
wilt deny thy master Christ."* Cranmer was soon 
put to the test. His silence, which was due to re- 
spect for the Queen, was interpreted as acquiescence 
in the restoration of the mass, and men thought he 
would follow in Northumberland's footsteps. Sto- 
ries were told that the Archbishop had set up the 
mass in Canterbury Cathedral, had offered to say it 
at Edward's burial, and again before the Queen in 
St. Paul's. They came to Cranmer's ears, and moved 
him, meek as he was, to a wrathful denial. He drew 
up a manifesto which he intended to fix on the doors 
of St. Paul's and other churches in London.' " As 
the Devil," he began, " Christ's ancient adversary, is 
a liar and the father of lying . . . now goeth he 
about by lying to overthrow the Lord's holy supper 
again, and to restore his Latin satisfactoryness, a 
thing of his own invention and device." Then, 
recounting the rumours about himself, he proceeds : 

"And although I have been well exercised these 
twenty years in suffering and bearing evil bruits, reports 
and lies, and have not been much grieved thereat, but 
have borne all things quietly, yet when untrue reports 
and lies tend to the hinderance of God's truth, then are 
they in no wise tolerate or to be suffered. Wherefore 



' fVorks, p. 62. 

" See Strype's Cranmer, i., 436 ; Original Letters, 1., 371. This 
declaration is printed in Cranmer's Works, i., 428-429, from the MS. 
at Emanuel College, Cambridge ; another MS. is at Corpus Chri^ti 
College, Cambridge. 



334 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

this is to signify to the world that it was not that I did 
set up the mass in Canterbury, but it was a false, flatter- 
ing, and lying monk. . . . And as for offering my- 
self to say mass before the Queen's Highness at St. 
Paul's, or in any other place, I never did it, as her Grace 
well knoweth. But if her Grace will give me leave, I will 
and by the might of God shall be ready at all times to 
prove against all that would say the contrary, that all that 
is said in the holy communion set forth by the most inno- 
cent and godly prince. King Edward VI., in his court of 
Parliament, is conformable to that order that Our Saviour 
Christ did both observe and command to be observed ; 
which also his apostles and primitive church used many 
years ; whereas the mass in many things not only hath 
no foundation of Christ's apostles nor the primitive 
church, but also is manifestly contrary to the same, and 
containeth in it many horrible abuses.'* * 

Then he offered to prove in public disputation 
that " not only the common prayers of the church, 
the ministration of the sacraments, and other rites 
and ceremonies, but also that all the doctrine and 

* It is often argued that neither the Second Book of Common 
Prayer nor the First was intended to be final ; and BuUinger stated 
in 1555 that " Cranmer had drawn up a book of prayers an hundred 
times more perfect than that which was then in being, but the same 
could not take place, for that he was matched with such a wicked 
clergy and convocation." (Strype, Cranmer^ p. 382.) This story agrees 
ill with Cranmer's statement in the text; and is on other grounds 
improbable. The Second Book of Common Prayer represented the 
furthest limit of Cranmer's advance towards continental Protestant- 
ism. BuUinger's assertion probably embodies a hazy recollection of 
the perfectly accurate account which his correspondents had given 
him of the First Prayer Book, where Cranmer's draft was toned 
down by the hostility of the bishops and others. 



1555] In Time of Trouble 335 

religion set forth by our sovereign lord King Ed- 
ward VI. is more pure and according to God's word 
than any other that hath been used in England these 
thousand years." 

This challenge was bold to the verge of foolhardi- 
ness, and it was the immediate occasion of the be- 
ginning of Cranmer's tribulations.* The manifesto 
was not then printed, but the Archbishop gave a 
copy to Bishop Scory, who indiscreetly communi- 
cated it to others ; and on the 5th of September the 
document was read aloud in Cheapside. Next day 
" every scrivener's shop almost was occupied in writ- 
ing and copying out the same.'" It was a counter- 
blast to Northumberland's apostasy which rejoiced 
the heart of every true Reformer ; and copies, says 
Renard, multiplied as fast in manuscript as the 
printing-press could have turned them out. A day 
or two later the Council sent for Cranmer ; he ap- 
peared before it on the 13th of September. It was 
busy with the case of Latimer, who on that day was 
sent to the Tower, and the Archbishop was ordered 
to attend the following day at the Star Chamber.' 

His offence, we are told in the Council's register, 
was long and seriously debated by the whole board ; 
and indeed their lordships' arguments must have been 
full of unconscious irony. They could, no doubt, 



' Froude (v., 255) not unjustly remarks, "Considering the position 
of the writer, and the circumstances under which it was issued, I re- 
gard the publication of this letter as one of the bravest actions ever 
deliberately ventured by man." 

^Foxe, viii., 38. 

^Acts P. C, 1552-54, pp. 346-347 ; CAron. Queen Jane, p. 27 : 
Grey friars' Ckron., p. 84 ; Wriothesley's Chron., ii., 103. 
25 



33^ Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

inveigh with a clear conscience against " the spread- 
ing about seditious bills moving tumults to the dis- 
quietness of the present state," though Cranmer had 
had little enough to do with the publication of his 
protest. But the main charge pretended against 
him was *' treason against the Queen's Majesty " — 
treason in which not a few of them had taken a far 
less innocent part than Cranmer. Northumberland 
had objected that many of the peers who condemned 
him for treason had been partakers in the self-same 
offence ; and Cranmer with more justice might have 
urged that it scarcely became Councillors to send 
him to the Tower for a crime which they had com- 
mitted.. That, however, was the result of this long 
and serious Star Chamber debate. Cranmer went 
out from the Council's presence and was conveyed 
forthwith to the Tower ; and as the gates clanged 
behind him they closed on the days of his free- 
dom. Probably by design he was lodged in the 
cell whence Northumberland had passed to the 
scaffold.* 

Two months later, on the 13th of November, 
Cranmer was put on his trial for treason at the 
Guildhall in London, and with him were associated 
Lady Jane Grey, her husband, and two other sons 
of Northumberland." Their technical guilt was much 
the same, and so was their moral innocence. All 
had acted under compulsion ; but that was a plea of 

^"Over the gate against the water-gate, where the Duke of 
Northumberland lay before his death." — Chron. Queen Jane. 

^ See documents relating to the trial in the Baga de Secretis, cal- 
endared in Appendix II. to the Fourth Report of the Deputy Keeper 
of Records. 



1555] In Time of Trouble 337 

which only courts of equity could take cognisance, 
and equitable considerations did not count in trials 
for treason. Cranmer at first pleaded not guilty, but 
then withdrew that plea and confessed to the charges. 
All the prisoners were condemned to death, but on 
Cranmer alone was there any design to carry out the 
sentence. The Archbishop, wrote Renard, who knew 
all the secrets of Mary's government, on the 17th of 
November, **will be executed."* But Mary or her 
ecclesiastical advisers soon discovered a scruple. 
Such an execution would be a violation of the laws 
of the Church, which were soon to be revived. By 
them no cleric could suffer at secular hands until he 
had been degraded and had lost the inviolability 
with which ordination invested the churchman. 
And so, although an Act of Parliament confirmed 
the attainder, Cranmer's life was spared for the 
moment. 

That he was put on his trial for treason at all was, 
indeed, an act of revenge, and no sophistry can 
make it anything else. Treason was not his crime, 
but his sentence of divorce against the Queen's 
mother." Winchester and Arundel, Bedford and 

* Froude, v., 295. Archbishop Heath is reported as saying that 
the Queen's determination was that Cranmer should only be deprived 
of his bishopric and given a sufficient living on condition that he 
kept his house and did not meddle yfith religion. (Foxe, viii. , 38.) 
These may have been Heath's own merciful sentiments, but they 
were soon overruled. 

' Mary's anger was natural enough, but she might have been sat- 
isfied with the triumph which established the validity of that mar- 
riage and seated her on the throne. She forgave Gardiner, who had 
been eagerly pushing on the divorce long before Cranmer had e^- 
pressed an opinion on it. 



33^ Thomas Cranmer [^553- 

Shrewsbury, Pembroke and Rich, Paget and Petre, 
Cheyney and Mason, had all committed worse trea- 
son than he, yet all were now sitting in Mary's 
Council, enjoying her confidence. Suffolk, Lady 
Jane's father, Northampton, and Cecil, three of 
Northumberland's strongest supporters, had all been 
pardoned ; but nothing could extort from Mary a 
pardon for him who had more than once interceded 
for her * ; and the whilom friends of the Archbishop, 
who now basked in the sunshine of Mary's favour, 
took care not to risk its loss on behalf of the pris- 
oner in the Tower. 

** Having no person," he wrote to the Queen, " that I 
know to be a mediator for me, and knowing your pitiful 
ears ready to hear all pitiful complaints, and seeing so 
many before to have felt your abundant clemency in 
like case, I am now constrained most lamentably and 
with most penitent and sorrowful heart to ask mercy 
and pardon for my heinous folly and offence in consent- 
ing and following the testament and last will of our late 
sovereign ; which will, God he knoweth, I never liked ; 
nor never anything grieved me so much that your 
Grace's brother did. And if by any means it had been 
in me to have letted the making of that will, I would 
have done it." ^ 

Then, after describing his fruitless efforts to pre- 
vent that madness, and the compulsion put upon 
him to sign the will, he admitted that when he sub- 
scribed he did it unfeignedly and without dissiinU" 

* See above, p. i6i. 

* Cranmer, Works ^ ii. , 443-444. 



I 



1555] In Time of Trouble 339 

lation. Nowhere does Cranmer's simple, transparent 
honesty come out so clearly ; had he possessed one 
iota of the dissembling craft with which he has some- 
times been charged/ he would never have written a 
sentence like that to Mary. It was not in him to 
sign a document with mental reservations ; when he 
subscribed the will, he did so with the full intention 
of keeping his promise, and he blurts out the truth 
like a child. Another eminent man signed the will, 
and has left an apology for his conduct ; it affords a 
useful contrast with Cranmer's. Twenty years later 
the wily Cecil put into the mouth of a servant his 
version of the affair. He falsely stated that he 
signed last of all, and then only signed as a ** wit- 
ness " — as if all the others could not have pretended 
the same excuse ! ' 

Having made his petition for life, Cranmer next 
desired leave to quiet his conscience, and incident- 
ally he stated with much precision and clearness his 
position on a subject's duty when he differed from 
his sovereign in religion. *' I will never, God willing, 

' " From first to last," says one zealous writer, "he had proved 
himself so base a dissembler that no confidence could possibly have 
been placed in the sincerity of his recantations. That he had lied 
therein also, he admitted by his final recantation of them all." — J. 
M. Stone, History of Queen Mary, IQOI, p. 389. 

^ Tytler, ii., 171, 202 ; Strype, Annals^ iv., 349. It need scarcely 
be said that there is no difference between Cecil's signature and those 
of the other Councillors. Cecil, in fact, was peculiarly responsible, 
as he had been Northumberland's most trusted secretary of state. 
No doubt he disliked and distrusted the scheme ; but if all who felt 
the same had acted with courage it would never have passed its in- 
itial stages. Cranmer's opposition was useless because the whole 
weight of Government was already cast in the other balance. 



340 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

be author of sedition to move subjects from the 
obedience of their heads and rulers, which is an of- 
fence most detestable." Yet conscience required 
him, considering the place he had held as chief spir- 
itual adviser to his sovereign, to *' shew your Majesty 
my mind in things pertaining unto God." When 
once he had done that, his conscience would be dis- 
charged. " For it lieth not in me, but in your Grace 
only to see the reformation of things that be amiss. 
To private subjects it appertaineth not to reform 
things, but quietly to suffer that they cannot amend." 
Even this statement of his mind he would not make 
without the Queen's permission ; and, needless to 
say, he awaited that grace in vain. 

Cranmer was now in a very anomalous position. 
He was a prisoner in the Tower and a condemned 
traitor ; that condemnation deprived him, according 
to the laws as they stood, of his Archbishopric, and in 
obedience to those laws he now signed himself merely 
T. Cranmer.* But by the canon law his ecclesiastical 
character remained still intact ; he could only be de- 
prived by spiritual authority after condemnation by 
a spiritual court for a spiritual offence. Mary, as 
an orthodox Roman Catholic and devoted Papist, 
wished to have Cranmer deprived by the Pope's 
authority and burnt as a heretic ; but the laws de 
hcBretico comburendo had not yet been revived nor 
those against the papal jurisdiction abolished." Hence 

^ E. g., in his letter to Mrs. Wilkinson, Works^ ii., 445. 

' These legislative changes were not ventured upon until 1554, 
when Wyatt's rebellion had failed, the marriage with Philip had 
been completed, the Emperor's support secured, and the sheriffs (not 



1555] In Time of Trouble 341 

Cranmer*s reprieve ; meanwhile he was only sequest- 
ered from his Archbishopric, and it was not till 
after his death that Cardinal Pole stepped into 
his place. He was even allowed to walk in the 
Tower gardens, and a greater appearance of clem- 
ency was shown if, as is said, he received a pardon 
for treason/ Had this been true, the boon would 
have resembled that accorded to Somerset, when he 
was acquitted of treason but condemned to death 
for felony ' ; and the mercy extended to Cranmer 

the constituencies) had been ordered to choose knights, citizens, and 
burgesses of "the wise, grave, and Catholic sort." This curious 
situation has created confusion in the minds of historians. Burnet 
says Cranmer was still considered archbishop. Wharton {Specimen 
of Errors) disputed this statement, showing that commissioners were 
appointed to exercise the jurisdiction of the see during its vacancy, 
and that a special register was kept for the period. Yet Cranmer 
was still archbishop by Roman canon law. The deprivation of Tun- 
stall by the civil power has been considered one of the most illegal 
acts of Edward's reign, and if Cranmer's deprivation had been com- 
plete there would have been no explanation of the sentence of 
deprivation subsequently pronounced at Rome nor of the delay in 
filling up the see. It was a question of conflict between the munici- 
pal laws of England and the universal law of the Church. By the 
one, Cranmer ceased to be archbishop on his attainder in November, 
1553 ; by the other, he remained archbishop till judgment was pro- 
nounced against him at Rome two years later. 

• Foxe, viii,, 38 ; Strype, i., 460; but neither gives any date or 
authority. If he had been pardoned he should have been released, 
as he had not yet been condemned for heresy. All the evidence is 
against the story. On 3 May, 1554, the Council, considering what 
to do with Cranmer, remarked that he had been judged a heretic by 
both universities, and was besides " already attainted." In Septem- 
ber, 1555, Bishop Brooks told him he was a dead man in the eye of 
the English law, being attainted of treason, and in 1563 an Act of 
Parliament was required for the restitution of his children. 

* England under Protector Somerset, p. 305. 



342 Thomas Cranmer tisss- 

would have consisted in substituting for death on the 
scaffold the more long-drawn torture at the stake. 
As a matter of fact, no pardon was ever granted. 

For a few months Queen Mary had enough to do 
to keep her throne without troubling about Cran- 
mer*s or any one else's heresy. The rebellion of 
Wyatt came nearer to success than any other revolt 
in Tudor times, but that very circumstance hardened 
her heart the more, and enabled her Government to 
maintain that heresy and treason were both the 
same thing. She had no more loyal subject than 
Cranmer, and he could not be even an innocent 
cause of dynastic plots as Lady Jane Grey was. 
Nevertheless, he was not to escape ; on 8 March, 
1554, the Lieutenant of the Tower was ordered to 
deliver Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer to Sir John 
Williams to be conveyed to Oxford.* The order 
was not at once carried out ; and, the Tower being 
crowded with prisoners, the three Reformers were 
placed in one room, where they read and discussed 
the New Testament. Early in April they were re- 
moved to Oxford and lodged in Bocardo' prison, 
opposite St. Michael's Church in the Corn Market. 
They were to partake in a scholastic disputation on 
the mass, and on the 14th of April the contest began 
in the University Church of St. Mary. 

» Aas P. C, 1552-54* p. 406. 

* The prison is said to have been so named because it was as im- 
possible to escape from it as from the logical figure known by that 
name ; it really formed part of the northern gate of the city. The 
door of Cranmer's prison is now in St. Mary Magdalene Church, 
which is close by the Martyrs' Memorial, and must be distinguished 
from the University church (St. Mary the Virgin). 



1555] In Time of Trouble 343 

Commissioners from Cambridge joined forces with 
those from Oxford for the debate, and the same 
men who argued with Cranmer were also to judge 
whether his or their arguments had prevailed.^ Nor 
were Ridley and Latimer permitted to hear his con- 
tentions, for each was to dispute alone. By this 
means they might be led to contradict one another, 
and the whole weight of all the Catholic disputants 
might be brought to bear on them singly. 

Cranmer was first selected ' ; the Prolocutor began 
by censuring in detail his past life. He then showed 
Cranmer the Articles round which the debate was 
to centre. Cranmer, declaring them to be contrary 
to God's Word, was required to commit his rea- 
sons to paper, and to be ready to maintain them in 
disputation on the following Monday, the i6th of 
April. At eight in the morning Weston opened the 
debate by declaring that their object was not to call 
Catholic doctrine into dispute, but to confound the 
heretics; what they wanted, in fact, was not justice 
but judgment. In that case, replied Cranmer, the 
disputation was useless. It was, indeed, only de- 
signed to register a foregone conclusion and to pro- 
vide grounds for his condemnation. He was not 
permitted to read the exposition of his views on the 
Sacrament, which Canon Dixon terms "learned, 



* Heylyn, ed. 1849, ii., 155, " Commissionated to dispute, and 
authorized to sit as judges " ; but several of the disputants were set 
apart as ^^ censor es.'* 

'^ See Foxe, vi., 439-468 for a full report of this disputation ; Jen- 
kyns, iv., 4-66 ; Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), i., 389-423 ; and 
Strype's Cranmer, chap. x. 



344 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

moderate, and noble," * nor was he allowed to cross- 
examine his numerous adversaries. 

" I never," he complained ' to the Council, " knew nor 
heard of a more confused disputation in all my life. For 
albeit there was one appointed to dispute against me, 
yet every man spake his mind, and brought forth what 
him liked without order. And such haste was made 
that no answer could be suffered to be given fully to any 
argument before another brought anew argument. . . . 
But why they would not answer us, what other cause can 
there be but that either they feared the matter, that they 
were not able to answer us, or else (as by their haste 
might well appear) they came, not to speak the truth, 
but to condemn us in post haste, before the truth might 
be thoroughly tried and heard ? " 

Chedsey ^ was Cranmer's chief antagonist, but the 
Prolocutor,* the Vice-Chancellor, and half a dozen 
other divines frequently interposed. In spite of 
this unmannerly treatment Cranmer bore himself 
throughout the ordeal with unruffled temper and 
courtesy. His demeanour towards the court was, if 
anything, too submissive ; but his points were none 
the less effective, and when, after six hours' contro- 
versy, the Prolocutor summed up against him and 
bade the audience cry *' Vicit Veritas^' even his oppon- 
ents do not appear to have been quite satisfied with 

^ Dixon, iv., i8g. 

^ Works, ii., 445-446. 

2 William Chedsey (15107-74?) had been chaplain to Bonner, and 
prebendary of St. Paul's in the previous reign. 

^/. e., Hugh Weston (1505 ?-68), Dean of Westminster and 
Windsor; see the present writer in Did. Nat, Biogr., Ix., 361. 



1555] In Time of Trouble 345 

the verdict. At any rate, he was asked to argue 
again on the following Thursday, when John Harps- 
field,' Bonner's archdeacon, was to dispute for his 
degree of D.D. ; and on this occasion Weston was 
moved to commend, not his arguments, but his con- 
duct. ** Your wonderful gentle behaviour and mod- 
esty," he said, " is worthy much commendation ; and 
that I may not deprive you of your right and just 
deserving, I give you most hearty thanks in mine own 
name, and in the name of all my brethren." At 
which saying " all the doctors gently put off their 
caps." This tribute was not to affect the sentence 
pronounced on all the three Reformers on the follow- 
ing day. They were said to have been overcome in 
the disputations, which Cranmer denied ; to be no 
members of the Church ; and were asked whether 
they would turn or no. With one accord they re- 
fused, and were condemned as heretics. ** From 
this your judgement and sentence," said Cranmer, 
" I appeal to the just judgement of God Almighty." 
These proceedings were purely academic ; for, 
as Hooper said, there was yet no law by which 
they could be condemned ; and Gardiner's efforts' 
to carry through Parliament the renewal of the 
heresy laws was even then meeting with successful 

1 John Harpsfield (1516-78) must not be confused with his bet- 
ter-known though younger brother, Nicholas (i5i9?-75); both are 
in the D.N .B. 

2 S. R. Maitland and others have defended Gardiner from the 
charge of persecution on the ground that his actions were only " of- 
ficial," and that he was bound to carry out the law ; but the fact is 
neglected that he did his best to pass laws which should make per- 
secution a part of his ordinary duties. 



34^ Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

resistance. Some of the hotter heads were for burn- 
ing them out of hand, despite the laws and in virtue 
merely of the commission by which they had been 
tried. And these unconstitutional views appear to 
have been expressed even in the Privy Council. It 
was sorely perplexed what to do ; to dispose of the 
heretics somehow or other was obviously its desire, 
and on the 3rd of May 

" it was resolved by their Lordships that the judges and 
the Queen's Highness' learned counsel should be called 
together and their opinions demanded what they think 
in law her Highness may do touching the cases of the 
said Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, being already by 
both the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge judged 
to be obstinate heretics ; which matter is the rather to 
be consulted upon for that the said Cranmer is already 
attainted."' 

The animus behind these words is clear; but the 
judges and other lawyers no doubt brushed aside 
the idea that the judgment of a few academics was 
a warrant for putting any one to death, even though 
a royal commission had invested their views with a 
fictitious importance. So Cranmer was sent back to 
Bocardo, Ridley to the charge of the sheriff, and 
Latimer to that of the bailiff of Oxford. For a year 
and a half they languished in prison until the law 
could be altered so as to secure their execution. 

The Romanist flood of reaction meanwhile surged 
higher and was lashed into greater violence ; in 

^ Acts P. c, 1554-56, p. 17. 



1555] In Time of Trouble 347 

Mary's first Parliament it submerged most of the 
work of Edward VI. ; in her third it now covered 
the remnant and that of Henry VIII. The Queen 
herself was its stormy petrel ; before the law had 
sanctioned the death of a single Reformer, she was 
arranging how they were to be burnt with decency 
and order.* But a suitable Parliament alone could 
give full effect to her wishes, and of the moderate 
House of Commons which rejected the heresy bills 
of May, 1554, not a sixth found seats in that which 
met in November.' Convocation petitioned for the 
renewal of the statutes de hcsretico comburendo* ; in 
the Commons there was little resistance, and the 
only fight for mercy was made in the House of 
Lords. In January, 1555, the great act of persecu- 
tion became the law of the land. The realm was 
reconciled with the Pope, and the Church recovered 
its power of dealing with heretics. The Dudleys 
who had been condemned with Cranmer for treason 
could now be released, for Cranmer was safe in the 
fiercer grip of the heresy laws. 

The engine which Parliament had at last let loose 
did not long remain idle. Six days after the session 
ended, the heretics in the Tower were arraigned be- 
fore Gardiner; and a fortnight later John Rogers 
" valiantly broke the ice " at Smithfield. Then began 

1 Collier, Eccl. Hist., ii., 371; Dixon, iv., 236. 

"^ Compare the lists in the Official Return of Members of Parlia- 
ment, 1878; this was the Parliament for which the Queen ordered 
the election of members " of a wise, grave, and Catholic sort " (see 
her letter in Burnet, vi., 313-314)- 

3 This fact rather goes against Canon Dixon's theory that the* 
clergy were ever backward in persecution^ 



34^ Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

the bloodiest persecution that England has ever 
known ; and before six months had passed, some fifty 
Protestant martyrs had suffered at the stake. Among 
these early victims were Bishops Hooper and Fer- 
rar, and eminent divines such as Rowland Taylor, 
Cardmaker, and Bradford. Yet this is the period 
during which Philip II. is said to have exercised a 
restraining influence over his wife ! There is, how- 
ever, something to be said for the wretched Queen. 
The idea that she was, in slaying her fellow-creatures, 
making a burnt-offering acceptable to God * may have 
been due to physical as well as to mental derange- 
ment. When she was cherishing for six months the 
delusion that she was about to become a mother and 
went so far as to appoint special envoys to announce 
the happy event to foreign courts with commissions 
all written out and nothing to fill in except the date 
of the birth and the sex of the child, it was natural 
enough that other illusions should darken her mind. 
And it must also be remembered in extenuation 
that if she had burnt every one of the thousands of 
heretics in her kingdom, she would only have been 
logically giving effect to the tenets of the faith she 
professed. But the result was that she did more than 
Henry VIII., more than Edward VI., and even more 
than Elizabeth to make the victory of the Reforma- 
tion in England certain. 

The delay in dealing with Cranmer was not due to 



* The origin of the idea that evil spirits possessed men, which could 
only be purged by burning, lies hidden in primitive mythology, and 
still survives, in a few savage tribes ; it filtered into Christianity like 
other pagan superstitions during the dark ages. 



1555] In Time of Trouble 349 

the mercifulness of Philip II., but to a desire to com- 
ply with all the punctilios of Roman canon law. 
One who had been an archbishop, consecrated with 
all the rites and ceremonies, clothed in the pallium 
sent from Rome, and proclaimed in the papal con- 
sistory, could, it was thought, only be decently dealt 
with by papal authority. To the Pope Cranmer was 
still Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, and as such 
he was cited before the papal commissioners. The 
academic resolution of April, 1554, was, of course, no 
condemnation by English law, and it was worth even 
less at Rome ; for the English Church was still bar- 
ren and dead in a schism until the following year, 
when the reconciliation with Rome restored it to life 
and made fruit possible. So Cranmer, Ridley, and 
Latimer were all to be tried again ; and the two latter 
were judged by three bishops acting on a commis- 
sion granted by Pole as papal legate. They were 
sentenced to death on the first of October, 1555, and 
on the 1 6th, from the roof of his Bocardo prison, 
Cranmer watched the flames devour his friends below 
in the ditch outside Balliol College ; he may have 
heard stout-hearted Latimer bid Ridley be of good 
cheer, for by God's grace they would light in Eng- 
land that day a candle that never should be put 
out. 

For Cranmer himself a longer trial was in pre- 
paration. In their abasement at the feet of papal 
majesty, the sovereigns of England appeared as par- 
ties in a suit against a subject of their own before a 
foreign tribunal. They " denounced " him to the 
Holy Father, and the Holy Father deputed the 



350 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

Prefect ' of his Holy Inquisition to act in the matter. 
The Prefect further delegated the conduct of the 
trial to Bishop Brooks ' of Gloucester, to the Dean of 
St. PauFs, and to the Archdeacon of Canterbury. 
Early in September Brooks arrived in Oxford, and 
cited Cranmer to appear at Rome in person or by 
proxy within the space of eighty days to answer 
such charges as should be laid against him by Philip 
and Mary. This was merely a formal pretence, for 
there was no intention of allowing Cranmer to plead 
in Rome, and on the I2th the subdelegate's court 
was opened in the Church of St. Mary.' Cranmer 
bowed to Drs. Martin and Story,* the proctors of 
Philip and Mary, but refused to recognise Brooks as 
the representative of a jurisdiction which he, like his 
opponents, had once forsworn. Brooks, after remark- 
ing that he came neither to judge nor to dispute, but 
to examine him in certain matters and to make re- 
lation thereof to him that had power to judge, ex- 
horted him to repent of his errors and return to the 
bosom of the Catholic Church. Cranmer, protesting 
that he made answer not to the Papal subdelegate, 
but to Martin and Story as King's arid Queen's proc- 



* Cardinal de Puteo (of the Pit, as Cranmer translated it), or 
Du Puy. 

' James Brooks, 1512-60, had been master of Balliol College, 
and succeeded Hooper as Bishop of Gloucester. 

^ For Cranmer's trial see Foxe, viii., 45-63 ; Jenkyns, iv., 79-117. 

* Dr. John Story had an adventurous career; see the present writer 
in Diet. Nat. Biogr. , liv. , 427. He lamented Queen Mary's mildness, 
wished to put the Princess Elizabeth to death, instigated Alva to 
establish the Inquisition at Antwerp in 1565, was executed, for 
t;i;easoa in 1570 and canonised in 1886,^^ 



1555] In Time of Trouble 351 

tors, then delivered a strong defence of the Royal 
Supremacy, of his writings on the Sacrament, and 
an attack upon the Papacy. " The Bishop of Rome,** 
he declared, " treadeth under foot God's laws and 
the King's *' ; " yet I speak not this for hatred I bear 
to him that now supplieth the room, for I know him 
not. I pray God give him grace not to follow his 
ancestors." The warmest dispute arose over the 
perjury with which Cranmer was charged in breaking 
his oath to the Pope. He retorted that Brooks had 
abjured the oath he swore to King Henry. Both 
accusations were true, and although Cranmer had 
saved his real consistency by his preliminary pro- 
testation that his oath to the Pope was void, that 
very act laid him open to a further technical charge 
of perjury. Brooks pronounced no sentence, for 
that was beyond his commission ; he merely sent a 
certified report of the proceedings to Rome, where 
it awaited the Pope*s decision. 

Immediately after this trial Cranmer sent a re- 
markably bold appeal to Mary,* vindicating his own 
and the nation's conduct in repudiatiner the papal 
jurisdiction, in adopting their mother 'tongue for 
their own devotions, in renouncing Transubstantia- 
tion, and in demanding the administration of the 
Sacrament under both elements. ** Alas ! ** he wrote, 

" It cannot but grieve the heart of any natural subject 
to be accused of the King and Queen of his own 
realm and specially before an outward judge, or by an 
authority coming from any person out of this realm ; 

'Cranmer, Works, ii., 447-454. 
24 



352 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 

where a King and Queen, as if they were subjects within 
their own realm, shall complain and require justice at a 
stranger's hand against their own subject being already 
condemned to death by their own laws. As though the 
King and Queen could not do or have justice within 
their own realms against their own subjects, but they 
must seek it at a stranger's hands in a strange land, the 
like whereof, I think, was never seen. I would have 
wished to have had some meaner adversaries; and I 
think that death shall not grieve me much more than to 
have my most dread and most gracious sovereign lord 
and lady (to whom under God I owe all obedience) to 
be mine accusers in judgement within their own realm 
before any stranger and outward power." 

Then, quoting from the Roman canon law, he 
showed how fatal the papal claims, if admitted, were 
to national independence; how the Queen herself, 
her judges, and all other executors of her laws stood 
condemned as heretics, because not a few of her 
laws were even then repugnant to the canon law of 
Rome, and Popes had pronounced all such laws in- 
valid and their authors, executors, and observers 
cursed. These things, he supposed, had not been 
explained to Parliament, or the Roman jurisdiction 
would never have been readmitted. The clergy 
who knew the truth had their own reasons for 
silence; they maintained the Pope 

" to the intent they might have as it were a kingdom 
and laws within themselves, distinct from the laws of 
the crown, and wherewith the crown may not meddle; 
and so being exempt from the laws of the realm, might 
live in this realm like lords and kings without damage 



I555J In Time of Trouble 353 

or fear of any man, so that they please their high and 
supreme head at Rome. . . . Ignorance, I know, 
may excuse other men; but he that knoweth how preju- 
dicial and injurious the power and authority, which he 
[the Pope] challengeth everywhere, is to the crown, laws, 
and customs of this realm, and yet will allow the same, I 
cannot see in anywise how he can keep his due allegiance, 
fidelity, and truth to the crown and state of this realm." 

This was the centre of Cranmer's position and, in- 
deed, the heart of the Reformation in England ; and 
in the repudiation of the claims of the Pope and the 
Church to a jurisdiction not merely independent of 
national systems but superior to them, the Reforma- 
tion was ultimately triumphant in Catholic as well 
as in Protestant countries. The State all over the 
world has deposed the Church from the position it 
held in the Middle Ages, and the existence of 
churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, in the 
various political systems is due not to their own 
intrinsic authority, but to the toleration or encour- 
agement extended to them by the State. No eccle- 
siastic has any appeal to that " outward judge," 
whom Cranmer denounced, from the national laws of 
the land in which he lives. The pretensions of Popes 
to dispense with oaths of allegiance, to root out and 
destroy, to plant and build again principalities and 
powers, have disappeared so utterly from the face of 
the earth that it is hard to believe they ever existed. 
Yet to Cranmer they were a real and terrible men- 
ace ; and, as if his previous letter had not been bold 
enough, he wrote again * to Mary, lamenting the 

» fVor^s, ii., 454. 



354 Thomas Cranmer ['553- 

oath she had taken to the Pope, *' to be obedient to 
him, to defend his person, to maintain his authority, 
honour, laws, and privileges." Such an undertaking 
was, he averred, inconsistent with the other oath she 
had sworn, to maintain the laws, liberties, and cus- 
toms of this realm. 

In conclusion, he complained that he was kept 
from the company of learned men, from books, from 
counsel, from pen and ink, save for the purpose of 
writing to her. He was, however, willing to answer 
his summons to Rome.* "And I trust that God 
shall put in my mouth to defend His truth there as 
well as here." That request, of course, was not 
granted; and on 20 November, 1555,* the Car- 
dinal-delegate brought his case before the Papal 
Consistory. Five days later Cranmer was pronounced 
contumacious for not appearing and was solemnly 
excommunicated by the Pope in person. The occa- 
sion, no doubt, was great, and the scene was perhaps 
impressive — the pastor of all the world cutting off 
from his flock the once great Primate of England. 
But in sixteenth-century Rome there was barely a 
step from the sublime to the infamous ; and in the 



* Dr. Gairdner in his life of Cranmer in the Diet. Nat, Biogr. says 
that "Foxe tells us that he expressed his willingness to go and de- 
fend himself at Rome if the Queen would let him. But the state- 
ment is scarcely consistent with the position he had already taken 
up,'* etc. The passage in Cranmer's letter above cited apparently 
escaped Dr. Gairdner' s eye. With regard to the inconsistency, 
Cranmer was not prepared to accept the Pope's jurisdiction ; he 
merely contemplated a sort of missionary enterprise of a very bold 
and hopeless nature. 

* Game's letter to Mary in Tytler, ii., 486-487, 



15551 In Time of Trouble 355 

same hour that the Vicar of Christ passed sentence 
upon the arch-enemy of the Catholic faith, the 
worldly Prince of the Papal States invoked the same 
terrific anathemas in a squalid dispute with a petty 
Italian lord ! ' 

Pole was then appointed to the vacant Archbish- 
opric, and a papal commission was issued for Cran- 
mer's degradation and delivery to the secular arm. 
His hour at last was come. Hitherto he had en- 
dured more than two years* incarceration and had 
withstood the assaults of his enemies without flinch- 
ing. He was now to be put to the supreme and 
final test whether he could sustain in deed the words 
of his letter to Mary. 

" I have not spoken for fear of punishment and to 
avoid the same, . . . but I have spoken for my most 
bounden duty to the crown, liberties, laws, and customs 
of this realm of England; but most specially to discharge 
my conscience in uttering the truth to God's glory, cast- 
ing away all fear by the comfort w^hich I have in Christ, 
who saith, * Fear not them that kill the body, and cannot 
kill the soul; but fear him that can cast both body and 
soul into hell-fire.* He that for fear to lose this life will 
forsake the truth, shall lose the everlasting life; and he 
that for the truth's sake will spend his life, shall find 
everlasting life." 

^Foreign Calendar ^ i553-58» p. 202. 



CHAPTER XIII 



IN THE HOUR OF DEATH 



WHILE the Pope was pronouncing him con- 
tumacious for taking no care to obey his 
citation * and was condemning him to be deprived 
and degraded as an obstinate heretic, and while 
he was being burnt in efdgy at Rome,' Cranmer 
was engaged in drawing up an appeal to a Gen- 
eral Council. The law of nature,' he wrote to a 
legal friend whose assistance he sought, required 
every man to defend his own life so far as it 
might be done without offence to God ; and lest he 
should seem rashly and unadvisedly to cast himself 
away he had resolved to follow Luther's example in 
appealing from Leo X. He was bound by oath, he 
said, never to consent to the reception of the Pope's 
authority in England ; from this came all his trouble, 
so that the quarrel was personal between him and 
the Pope, and no man could be a lawful and in- 
different judge in his own cause; therefore, he 
had good reason in appealing to a General Council. 

* *' Comparere non curaret" says the Pope. 
' Recantacyons, p. 69. 
» Works, ii., 455-456. 

356 



In the Hour of Death 357 

Not that he thought his life would thereby be saved ; 
he was well aware that in 1460 Pius II. by his " ex- 
ecrable" Bull' had forbidden all such appeals to 
a General Council, and had thus made absolute his 
own jurisdiction. ** The chiefest cause in very deed 
(to tell you the truth)," wrote Cranmer, '* of this 
mine appeal is that I might gain time (if it shall so 
please God) to live until I have finished mine answer 
against Marcus Antonius Constantine' which I now 
have in hand." 

The appeal was a stirring and striking document.* 
Cranmer paid an eloquent tribute therein to Rome's 
services in early times. 

" The Church of Rome, as it were, lady of the world, 
both was and was also counted worthily the mother of 
other churches; forasmuch as she then first begat to 
Christ, nourished them with the food of pure doctrine, 
did help them with her riches, succoured the oppressed, 
and was a sanctuary for the miserable; she rejoiced with 
them that rejoiced and wept with them that wept. Then 
by the examples of the Bishops of Rome riches were 



• The bull '' Execrabilis" is dated i Jan., 1460: see Cambridge 
Mod. Hist., i., 632-633. 

^ I.e., Gardiner, who under this pseudonym published a rejoinder 
in 1552 to Cranmer's books on the Sacrament. Three books of this 
reply are said to have been completed by Cranmer when his work 
was cut short; but all trace of them has disappeared. Nor does any 
copy of Gardiner's book appear to be known. See Cranmer, Works, 
vol. ii., Pref., p. x. ; and other references s. v. Gardiner in Gough's 
Index to Parker Soc. Publications. Neither of these works is 
mentioned by the biographers of Cranmer and Gardiner in the Diet. 
Nat. Biogr. 

*Foxe, viii., 73-76; Jenkyns, iv., 121-129; Works, ii., 224-228. 



35^ Thomas Cranmer 

despised, worldly glory and pomp was trodden under 
foot, pleasures and riot nothing regarded. Then this 
frail and uncertain life, being full of all miseries was 
laughed to scorn, whiles through the example of Romish 
martyrs men did everywhere press forward to the life to 
come. But afterward the ungraciousness of damnable 
ambition never satisfied, avarice, and the horrible enorm- 
ity of vices, had corrupted and taken the see of Rome, 
there followed everywhere almost the deformities of all 
churches growing out of kind into the manners of the 
church, their mother, leaving their former innocency 
and purity, and slipping into foul and heinous usages. 
For the foresaid and many other griefs and abuses, since 
reformation of the above-mentioned abuses is not to be 
looked for of the Bishop of Rome; neither can I hope 
by reason of his wicked abuses and usurped authority, 
to have him an equal judge in his own cause, therefore 
I do challenge and appeal in these writings from the 
Pope." 

He protested against being condemned in his ab- 
sence ; he could not appear in person, for he was 
straitly kept in prison ; " and though I would never 
so fain send any proctor, yet by reason of poverty I 
am not able (for all that ever I had, wherewith I 
should bear my proctor's costs and charges, is quite 
taken from me)." 

This appeal Cranmer had no means of lodging, 
and on 13 February, 1556, Bonner and Thirlby 
went down to Oxford to execute the papal com- 
mission for his degradation. The procedure on 
such occasions was a monument of exquisite cruelty^' 

* The form is given in Foxe, viii., 77-79 ; cf, Pontificale Romanum 
by J. Catalan (Rome, 1740), iii., i46->i64. 



In the Hour of Death 359 

nothing that ingenuity could devise was omitted to 
abase the victim and wound his spirit ; and while 
Bonner gloated over his task, Thirlby must have 
suffered at least as much as Cranmer. He was a man 
of humanity and had received promotion, friendship, 
and other benefits from the Archbishop. "Whether 
it were a jewel," writes Morice, " plate, instrument, 
maps, horse, or anything else, Thirlby had but to 
admire, and Cranmer would give it him." * Calling 
the prisoner before them in the choir of Christ 
Church Cathedral, the two papal commissioners read 
their commission. When they came to the state- 
ment that his cause had been indifferently (/. e, im- 
partially) heard at Rome and that he had lacked 
nothing necessary for his defence, Cranmer was 
moved to anger ; ** God must needs," he exclaimed, 
** punish this open and shameless lying." Next he 
was clothed in the vestments of all the seven orders 
and with the insignia of an archbishop ; a staff was 
put in his hand and a mitre upon his head. Then 
Bonner mocked him : 

" This is the man," he said, "that hath ever despised the 
Pope's Holiness, and now is to be judged by him ; this 
is the man that hath pulled down so many churches and 
now is come to be judged in a church ; this is the man 
that contemned the blessed sacrament of the altar, and 
now is come to be condemned before that blessed sacra- 
ment hanging over the altar ; this is the man that like 



1 Harleian MS., 416, fol. 183; in Dixon, iv., 500, the number of 
the MS. is misprinted as 116. 



36o 



Thomas Cranmer 



Lucifer sat in the place of Christ upon an altar ' to 
judge others, and now is come before an altar to be 
judged himself." 

So pained was Thirlby at this exhibition that more 
than once he pulled Bonner's sleeve to stop him. 
After this they began to strip Cranmer of his robes. 
As they took off his pall he asked, **Which of you 
hath a pall to take off my pall ? " He was an arch- 
bishop, they only bishops ; they acted, they replied, 
not as bishops but as papal delegates. They then 
wrested the crozier staff from his hands, while he 
drew from his sleeve his appeal to a General Council.' 
Thirlby said they could admit no appeal, and the 
degrading rite went on. Bonner scraped his fingers 
and nails to obliterate the effects of an unction 
administered twenty-three years before. Divested 
of episcopal rank, Cranmer was then successively 
degraded from the orders of priest, deacon, sub- 
deacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and doorkeeper. 
Finally a barber shaved his head to deprive him of 
whatever grace a long disused tonsure may have 
originally given him. " Now," exclaimed Bonner in 
brutal triumph, "now are you no lord any more.'* 
" All this," said Cranmer, " needed not ; I had my- 
self done with this gear long ago." 

* This was a scandal which Cranmer warmly repudiated. The 
truth of the incident was that, Cranmer having to sit in commission 
at St. Paul's, a scaffold was as usual prepared for him by the 
Bishop (Bonner) and his officials; and it is possible that the scaffold 
concealed an altar. 

^ In Foxe and in other accounts the crozier is said to have been 
taken away first, but the regular and natural order was to begin with 
the highest insignia, the pall. 



In the Hour of Death 361 

Clad in " a poor yeoman-beadle's gown, full bare 
and nearly worn," Cranmer was now as a layman 
handed over to the secular authorities, whom Bon- 
ner, if he followed the usual form, besought not to 
expose their charge to any danger of death or muti- 
lation ! He was taken back to Bocardo, where two 
days later he made the first of his dated recantations. 
It stands fourth among All the Submissions and 
Recantations of Thomas Cranmer^ officially pub- 
lished after his death ; and according to another 
recently discovered narrative,' he had for six weeks 
or more been listening to the persuasions of two 



* This other narrative is entitled Bishop Cranmer' s Recantacyons; 
it was privately printed in 1885 by the late Lord Houghton 
under the editorship of Dr. J. Gairdner. The original MS. is in the 
Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris; it was found among Nicholas 
Harpsfield's papers and is thought to have been written either by 
him or by Alan Cope. Canon Mason thinks the tract was 
written by Harpsfield; but Harpsfield affected to disbelieve the 
whole incident of Cranmer's burning his right hand (see Dixon, 
iv., 545), an incident mentioned in the Recantacyons, Dr. 
Gairdner, Canon Dixon, and Canon Mason have based their 
accounts of Cranmer's last days largely upon it, but its authority 
is very questionable. It was, as the author admits, "written 
to order," to counteract the effect of Cranmer's final triumph, to 
check the Protestant boasting over his courage (see Recantacyons^ p. 
113), and to prove that he was no martyr — a contention which 
Harpsfield maintained in his Dialogi Sex^ 1566, p. 743 (it may also 
be noted that in the Recantacyons and in Harpsfield's Divorce we 
have the only contemporary authority for the story of Cranmer's 
wife). Moreover, it is full of strange stories of attempted rescues, 
the appearance of comets, etc. We are told that Cranmer's heart 
remained unburnt, being hardened by the poison of heresy, as Sueton- 
ius relates that Germanicus's heart was made proof against cremation 
by material poison ^Recantacyons ^ p. 109). It states that on his way 



362 Thomas Cranmer 

Spanish Friars, Pedro de Soto and John de Villa 
Garcia, and of his gaoler, Nicholas Wodson. He is 
also said to have asked for an interview with his old 
friend Tunstall, who replied that Cranmer was more 
likely to shake him than be convinced by him, and 
with Cardinal Pole, who gathered up all his skirts 
when there was fear of contact with heretics. It is 
as a result of these persuasions that Cranmer is sup- 
posed to have signed the first three of his recanta- 
tions; but they are not really recantations at all. 
In the official version th^ first two are merely styled 
"submissions," and the third still more vaguely a 
"scriptum." They are, in fact, only submissions 

to execution Cranmer declared that he would have maintained his 
recantation if only the Pope had let him live, and repeated the 
statement at the stake /a/aw aperteque (publicly and openly), which 
is quite incredible, seeing that a few moments before Cranmer had 
irrevocably renounced the Pope " and all his false doctrine." There 
is no word of this in the detailed account of the scene written by a 
Catholic bystander in a letter to a friend immediately afterwards, 
nor in the account written by the Venetian ambassador in London 
three days later; and it is inconsistent with Queen Mary's explana- 
tion of her action in putting Cranmer to death, viz., that his 
' ' iniquity and obstinacy against God and the Queen were so great 
that her clemency and mercy could have no place with him." 
{Foreign Cal.^ 1553-58, p. 224; Venetian Cal., 1553-58, Pt. i., p. 386). 
Such a declaration made palam aperteque would have stultified the 
whole of Cranmer's action on his last day, and would not have 
remained unknown until 1885. Finally, the author of this tract 
gives a wrong date for Cranmer's execution. Under these circum- 
stances it cannot be accepted as an historical authority of much 
value. The Government had ^lo reason to spare Cranmer's reputa- 
tion; they even published under official sanction as his words the 
very opposite of what he spoke. If, therefore, they had known of 
anything worse than the details embodied in their official version, 
^// Mi? ^w^/mVi-wwj, they would certainly have published it. 




CARDINAL POLE. 

AFTER THE PICTURE BY TITIAN, NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF LORD ARUNDEL OF WARDOUR. BY 
PERMISSION OF THE OWNER AND MESSRS, CASSELL & CO. 



In the Hour of Death 3^3 

to authority, such as Cranmer*s political principles 
almost compelled him to make. 

It must always be borne in mind that the English 
Reformers of the sixteenth century as a rule recog- 
nised no such thing as the right to individual judg- 
ment, and its necessary corollary, religious toleration. 
Every form of government is based on a compromise 
between two principles, either of which, when pushed 
to extremes, is fatal to human society. The idea 
of private judgment ultimately leads to anarchy, 
and the doctrine of authority to slavery. In some 
cases the law must override individual conscience, 
while on the other hand, unless individual conscience 
had occasionally defied the law, there would have 
been no progress; and men who denounce most 
vigorously resistance to the law are often first to 
resist when the law touches their own individual con- 
science. Cranmer was now at the crux of the dif- 
ficulty. The question for him, as for most others, 
had been between the authority of the Pope and that 
of the English State represented by the King. He 
had unreservedly decided for the authority of the 
State, and he was deeply imbued with the sixteenth- 
century notions of the wickedness of resistance to the 
King's authority. He had in 1 549 told the rebels of 
Devon with unnecessary emphasis that if the whole 
world prayed for them till doomsday it would not 
avail them unless they repented their disobedience. 

This theory involved but slight inconvenience 
when Henry or Edward was King, and when their 
laws concurred with Cranmer's conscience in renounc- 
ing the Pope and his doctrine. But when Mary was 



364 Thomas Cranmer 

Queen the trouble began. If the English sovereign, 
Church, and Parliament had the right to abolish the 
papal jurisdiction, had they not also the right to 
restore it ? And this authority restored, on what 
grounds could Cranmer resist? When arguing with 
Sir Thomas More about the oath of succession in 
1534, he had suggested that More's conscience was 
doubtful about his duty to swear, but there was no 
doubt about his duty to obey the King.' Even More 
confesses that he was unable at first to rebut the 
argument ; yet he had surer ground than Cranmer 
in 1556 when the same reasoning was turned against 
him. For More could say that the voice of the 
Catholic Church justified him in refusing in this in- 
stance obedience to the King; but Cranmer could 
not plead the authority of the Church. For good or 
for ill, he had pinned his faith and allegiance to the 
State ; and logically he was driven to obey the 
State even when it asserted the jurisdiction of 
Rome. Was there not also Scriptural warrant for 
yielding under compulsion? Had not Elisha pro- 
mised pardon to Naaman whenever he bowed the 
knee in the House of Rimmon? 

It was this distressing dilemma which produced 
Cranmer's first submission ; he recognised the papal 
authority, not because its claims had any intrinsic 
weight, but because the law of England, which he 
was bound to obey, had reimposed that authority. 
" Forasmuch," he wrote,J "as the King's and Queen's 

' Z. and p. of Henry VIII., vii., 227. 

' Jenkyns, iv., 393, who reprints Cawood's official publication, 
All the Su(>missiQns^ 



In the Hour of Death 365 

Majesties, by consent of the Parliament, have re- 
ceived the Pope's authority within this realm, I am 
content to submit myself to their laws herein." Yet 
he was not content ; his conscience warred with his 
logic. Whatever the laws might say, his conscience 
did not admit the papal claims. He had sworn to 
renounce the Pope, andw that oath represented his 
real convictions. Scarcely had he signed the first 
submission before he cancelled it, throwing logic to 
the winds and taking refuge in conscience. But 
then, what about his oath of allegiance to Mary and 
her laws? Was not that also a conscientious oath? 
Undoubtedly it was: his conscience was now di- 
vided against itself, while logic counselled submission. 
Thus divided, his conscience could not stand, and a 
second submission followed, more complete than the 
first. 

The date of these two submissions cannot be 
ascertained. Perhaps they preceded his degrada- 
tion,* on 14 February. If so, they were annulled 
by the appeal he then presented to a General Coun- 
cil, in which he spoke of the heinous and usurped 
authority of the Bishop of Rome, and by his declar- 
ation during the ceremony that he would never 
again say mass. Either the indignities then suffered 
renewed his abhorrence of the papal system or the 
presentation of his appeal gave him fresh confidence ; 

' On the other hand, in his final recantation, Cranmer repudiated 
all bills signed "since my degradation." He certainly meant to 
repudiate all his acknowledgments of papal authority ; and, unless 
he made a mistake, his words must imply that no submissions were 
signed before bis degradation. 



366 Thomas Cranmer 

for when Bonner visited him in Bocardo on 
15 and 16 February he could only extort from 
him submissions much more guarded than before. 
These are the third and fourth recantations; 
the third, while expressing readiness to submit 
to the laws of the King and Queen concerning the 
Pope's supremacy, promised with regard to his 
books submission not to the Pope, but only to the 
judgment of the Catholic Church and of the next 
General Council. The fourth recantation, dated 
15 February, was the first in which Cranmer 
made any direct reference to questions of doctrine, 
and he did so " in terms which might have been 
subscribed by any of the martyrs that had died.'** 
He simply declared his belief to be in accord with 
that of the Catholic Church ; that, of course, had all 
along been his contention ; Popery was a corruption 
of Catholicism. 

These documents Bonner took back to London, 
where it now devolved upon the Government, that 
is to say. Queen Mary and Cardinal Pole,* to decide 
what was to be done with the degraded Archbishop. 
There is no reason to suppose that they ever in- 
tended to spare his life. They would have thought 
it presumption to neglect a papal sentence, and in- 
deed those condemned by the Church were as a 

* Dixon, iv., 505. 

* Gardiner, the Lord Chancellor, had died on 12 November, 
1555 ; oil liis death-bed he is reported to have said, " Negavi cum 
Petro^ exivi cum Petro, sed nondum Jlevi cum Petrol {Diet. 
Nat. Piogr.^ xx., 424.) The " negavi " refers to his repudiation of 
Rome under Henry VIII., the "exivi" to his deprivation under 
Edward VI. 



In the Hour of Death 367 

matter of course in Mary's reign sent to the stake. 
From their point of view, Cranmer had done evil 
for which his death would be but a slight atone- 
ment ; unable to comprehend the state of mind 
which led men to reject the doctrine of Rome, they 
and many others since their time attributed the whole 
Reformation in England to the divorce of Queen 
Catherine, in which Cranmer had played no small 
part. That to Mary was naturally a grievous offence, 
and others who shared the guilt with Cranmer were 
not sorry that he alone should bear the responsi- 
bility. Nor, although the contrary has often beeh 
asserted, was it illegal to burn a penitent heretic. * 

But Mary and Pole had wider objects in view than 
the satisfaction of a personal animus against Cranmer 
or the exemplary punishment of the greatest living 
heretical Englishman, They desired to serve the 
general cause of Roman Catholicism. It was not 
enough that Cranmer should die ; he must also be 
made to ruin the Reformation. Northumberland 
had "turned many*' by his speech on the scaffold; 
if Cranmer would only repeat the performance, 
the candle lighted by Ridley and Latimer might be 
snuffed out after all. Cranmer's weakening on the 



' Froude describes Cranmer's burning as "an act unsanctioned 
even by their own bloody laws," and Canon Dixon says that if Cran- 
mer was not a martyr he was a murdered man. But in 1498, for 
instance, at Canterbury a heretic priest was burnt at the stake, 
even though Henry VII. himself persuaded him to recant and *' got 
great honour" thereby. (Cotton MS., Vitellins A., xvi., f. 172; 
Excepta Historica^ p. 117.) It was, no doubt, considered the proper 
thing to pardon penitent heretics, but it does not appear to have 
been a legal obligation. 
25 



368 Thomas Cranmer 

point of the papal supremacy had already suggested 
that he might be used for this purpose, and after 
Bonner's return to London means were considered 
for producing a deeper impression on Cranmer*s 
mind. Terror was first employed, and on 24 Feb- 
ruary the Queen signed a warrant for his committal 
to the flames. No date was fixed, ^ but Cranmer 
was given to understand that the writ had been 
signed. 

When a sufficient interval had elapsed for this in- 
formation to work on the prisoner's mind, his treat- 
ment was suddenly changed. The prison doors were 
thrown open, and Cranmer exchanged his dungeon 
in Bocardo for the pleasant Deanery of Christ 
Church.' There he was used with every consid- 



* This warrant is printed in Burnet, v., 452, 453, where it is erro- 
neously styled a writ ; a zvarrani was directed by the Queen to the 
Lord Chancellor, who would thereupon issue out of Chancery a 
writ for the execution. Burnet's error has led Canon Dixon into 
confusion on the subject ; he disputes Lingard's assertion that the 
day of Cranmer's execution was fixed (Dixon, iv., 207), and says tlie 
day was not fixed in the writ. But he is thinking of the warrant, 
which did not fix a date ; and although it prescribed the form of the 
writ, the writ itself does not appear to be extant. Dr. Gairdner, on 
the authority of the Recantacyons ^ p. 75, says that Cranmer. was told 
he was to suffer on 7 March, which is possibly true. 

* The Recantacyons and Dr. Gairdner place Cranmer's removal to 
Christ Church before and not after his degradation ; but not very 
consistently the Recantacyons represents Cranmer as being influenced 
by the keeper of Bocardo prison at the time that he is supposed to 
be faring delicately in Christ Church. Foxe definitely says that it 
was after the degradation ; Canon Dixon takes the same view, and 
some confirmation of it may be found in the fact that the English 
witness to the fifth recantation was Henry Siddall, Canon of Christ 
Church. 



In the Hour of Death 3^9 

eration. He walked in the gardens, played bowls 
on the green, enjoyed the converse of men of learn- 
ing and wit, and lacked no delicate fare. Bishop 
Brooks at his trial told him* that, "whereas you 
were Archbishop of Canterbury and Metropolitan of 
England, it is ten to one (I say) that ye shall be as 
well still, yea, even better." All these things might 
be given him if 

Then Cranmer fell. He signed his fifth or real 
recantation,' in which he anathematised the whole 
heresy of Luther and Zwingli, confessed his belief 
in one holy and visible Catholic Church, beyond 
the pale of which there was no salvation, and recog- 
nised the Pope as Christ's vicar and supreme head 
of the Church on earth. The true body and blood 
of Christ were, he declared, really present under the 
forms of bread and wine in the sacrament ; the bread 
was translated into the body and the wine into the 
blood of Christ. He acknowledged the six other sac- 
raments and the existence of Purgatory. This was no 
mere submission to outward authority, but a profess- 
edly complete recantation of inward belief extorted 
from him by the poignant contrast between the 
pleasant prospect of life and the vivid horror of an 
agonising death. He surrendered every point for 
which he had fought ; the " comfort he had in 
Christ " had not, as he hoped, enabled him " to cast 
away all fear." 

Unfortunately, human frailty has made Cranmer's 

* Foxe, viii., 48. No definite promises are known to have been 
made, unless Foxe's authority be accepted, but Cranmer's treatment 
was suggestive, ' Jenkyns, iv., 395. 



370 Thomas Cranmer 

case a type rather than an exception among religious 
leaders. But they lived in times far removed from 
the comfortable immunity which now attends doc- 
trinal vagaries ; and it is more charitable and perhaps 
more fruitful to attempt to understand the psycho- 
logical problem presented by cases like those of St. 
Peter, Hus, Jerome of Prague, Savonarola, Cranmer, 
and Galileo ' than to make broad our phylacteries 
and point the finger of scorn at those who succumb- 
ed to a test which their critics have never stood. 
How comes it that an ordinary dervish will face 
death without flinching when great religious leaders 
have quailed ? No doubt the horrible mode of a here- 
tic's death supplied an additional terror, and courage 
comes easier on the spur of the moment and in the 
heat of the battle than after prolonged reflection. But 
it is also true that the more sensitive the mind is, 
the greater is the fortitude required to confront 
danger. It is easy for the dull brain to face death ; a 
dog, could it reason, could never be made to recant, 
because it would fail to imagine death. But an im- 
pressionable imagination like Cranmer*s paints the 
unknown horrors of the stake in the most vivid 
colours. It was the working of his imaginative and 
susceptible mind which drove Cranmer to yield 
when less impressionable men like Hooper, Ridley, 
and Latimer successfully bore the strain. 



> For Hus and Jerome, see Creighton, History of the Papacy ^ 
Bk. II., chap. V ; for Savonarola, see Villari's Life, and for Galileo 
see Fahie's Life. The scientist is perhaps the least to be excused, 
for he had means of verifying his conclusions which were not available 
fof the theologians ; his certainty was objective, theirs only subjective, 



In the Hour of Death Z7^ 

In another respect Cranmer was less fitted than 
his colleagues to withstand the attack. A man who 
sees only one side of truth at a time is proof against 
doubt ; but the man of broader intellect, who knows 
that truth is relative and feels the force of hostile 
arguments, is inevitably less dogmatic and less abso- 
lutely sure of the impregnability of his position. In 
these days of comparative study it might almost be 
said that to be positive is to be ignorant ; and few 
there are who would give their bodies to be burnt 
on the assumption that their opinion was the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth. Cranmer was 
much nearer this modern position than his con- 
temporaries ; he knew, none better, that on the im- 
pregnable rock of Holy Scripture could be based 
arguments against him as well as for him, and that 
the voice of the Church had varied in various ages. 
Even General Councils, he knew, could err ; was he, 
then, unique and infallible? His distressing dilemma 
between a conscience which bade him renounce the 
Pope and a conscience which bade him obey his sov- 
ereign opened a breach through which doubts rushed 
in and submerged him. 

The date of his fifth recantation is uncertain, 
but it was in print before 13 March, when the 
Privy Council summoned the printers before them 
and ordered all copies to be burnt.* An English 
translation of this document, writes the Venetian 
ambassador on 24 March,' 



» Acts p. C, 1554-6, p. 247. 

* Venetian Cal, 1553-58, Pt. i., p. 386. This is the nearest con- 
temporary account of the incident ; cf. Original Letter Sy i., 173, 



372 Thomas Cranmer 

" was published in London, and as it was signed by 
Father Soto and his associate, both Spaniards, . . . 
the Londoners not only had suspicion of the document, 
but openly pronounced it a forgery ; so the Lords of the 
Council were obliged to suppress it and to issue another 
witnessed by Englishmen." 

It may have been partly to demolish for ever 
these suspicions of forgery that Cranmer, who was 
now — if not before — sent back to Bocardo, was 
required to make a sixth and still more debas- 
ing confession*; but the main object seems to 

where Sampson writes from Strassburg on 6 April : "A certain 
absurd recantation, forged by the papists, began to be spread abroad 
during his life-time, as if he made that recantation ; but the authors 
of it themselves recalled it while he was yet living," Foxe also 
plainly believes it was forged, and in more recent times Whiston, 
Todd, and Soames have doubted whether Cranmer recanted at all. 
There is little ground for this view, which would destroy the signifi- 
cance of Cranmer's action in burning his right hand. With regard 
to the suppression of the first edition of the fifth recantation various 
theories have been suggested. Dixon thinks it was suppressed because 
it was issued by an " obscure" firm merely at the instance of the 
Oxford theologians, Lingard because it infringed the patent of Ca- 
wood, the Queen's printer, and others because it really was forged. 
Dixon's idea of Copland's being an obscure firm will not stand 
against the two pages about him in the Diet. Nat. Biogr. , and there 
may be something in Lingard's view, as Cawood undoubtedly had 
the right to publish official documents. Yet there was probably 
some truth in the Venetian ambassador's story. Dixon says it is 
inaccurate because Siddall (not Soto) and Garcia are the witnesses ; 
so they are in the later edition of Cawood ; but what the ambassa- 
dor says is that Soto and Garcia witnessed Copland's first suppressed 
edition, of which no copy is known. Probably Siddall, as an Eng- 
lishman, was substituted for Soto ; he was one of the most active 
turncoats in that canting and recanting age. See Diet. Nat. Biogr. ^ 
lii., 193. 1 Printed in Jenkyns, iv., 396-397. 



In the Hour of Death 373 

have been to cover the whole history of the Re- 
formation with shame and indeUble infamy. Hith- 
erto Cranmer had only professed a complete change 
of mind, without directly accusing his past career. 
Now he was to depict his misdeeds in the black- 
est hues, and to attribute to his own sinister influ- 
ence the whole series of woes which had lately 
afflicted the realm. " I have sinned " (such were the 
words put into his mouth) ^ " most grievously, before 
Heaven and against the realm of England, yea, 
against the whole Church of Christ ; I have perse- 
cuted more furiously than Paul ; I have blasphemed, 
persecuted, and maltreated." He was then made to 
compare himself with the thief on the cross, and to 
imply that, like the thief, he only repented when his 
means to do harm had failed. He was most deserving, 
proceeded the confession, not only of all human and 
temporal, but of divine and eternal punishment, 

** because I did exceeding great wrong to Henry VIII,, 
and especially to his wife, Queen Catherine, when I 
became the cause and author of their divorce ; which 
crime, indeed, was the seed-plot of all evils and ca- 
lamities to this realm. Hence came the death of so 
many good men, hence the schism of the whole realm, 
hence heresies, hence the confounding of so many minds 
and bodies. ... I opened wide the windows to 
heresies of every sort, of which I myself was the chief 
doctor and ductor. ... In this indeed I was not 



* The real author of this document was probably Cardinal Pole; 
its style bears a striking resemblance to that affected by Pole ; and 
the view of the origin of the Reformation is that expressed by Pole 
in a letter to Mary in 1553 {Cambridge Modern History, ii., 519). 



374 



Thomas Cranmer 



only worse than Saul and the thief, but most accursed of 
all whom the earth has ever borne. . . ."* 



This last shameful confession, — more shameful to 
those who dictated it than to the heart-broken cap- 
tive who signed it, — was dated i8th March. It 
would reach London on the following day. Queen 
Mary and Pole had now got what they wanted and 
all they could hope to obtain. Here was a version 
of recent history even more pleasing to them than 
that of Northumberland. When the chief prophet 
of Reform had cursed it in terms like these, who 
should be found to bless or defend ? A signal and 
final service had Cranmer performed ; he could be of 
no further use except to repeat in public his private 
confession ; he might now be dismissed to the stake. 
Orders were given at once, which would reach Ox- 
ford on the 20th, that Cranmer should be burned on 
the following day. Dr. Cole, Provost of Eton, was 
warned to prepare a sermon, and Lord Williams of 
Thame and other local magnates were directed to 
summon their forces to maintain order at the com- 
ing execution. Cole arrived in Oxford on the 20th, 
and the lords and their retainers in the early hours 
next morning. 



* Notwithstanding the outcry about the witnesses to the fifth re- 
cantation, this sixth document has no witness at all, and in this 
respect it resembles all the recantations except the fifth. It was 
scarcely surprising that the fifth recantation was the only one known 
to Foxe ; if all the documents were unwitnessed they might all be 
considered equally authentic ; but the fact that in the official version 
one is witnessed and the others are not seems to imply a distinction 
either in importance or authenticity. 



In the Hour of Death 375 

It was probably on the day before his death that 
Cranmer composed what is called his seventh recan- 
tation.^ It consisted of the address he should make 
to the people at his execution, and when he wrote it 
out he must have already known that he was to die 
on the morrow." His sixth recantation had bent the 
bow to the uttermost ; could a religious system 
which involved such cruelty be just or true? He 
was still in the valley of doubts and fears, but 
the light had begun to glimmer, and the harrowed 
mind to hope. Although this seventh document 
asserts the real and substantial presence of Christ 
in the Eucharist, and repudiates the books he 
had written against that doctrine since the death 
of Henry VIII., it contains no such shameful 

* Jenkyns, iv., 398-400: it is neither signed, witnessed, nor dated ; 
but most of it, at any rate, was Cranmer's composition. 

'Otherwise how could he have written " I am now come to the 
last end of my life," etc. ? The idea that Cranmer did not know he 
was to die on the 21st until that same morning originated with 
Foxe, who was not acquainted with the seventh recantation, a docu- 
ment carefully prepared on the assumption that he was to die. That 
he wrote this and not merely spoke it is clear from the fact that this 
recantation is printed in the official version by Cawood. Cranmer 
appears to have made more than one copy of this document, and 
from one of these the Government printed it. Strype, Todd, and 
Froude accuse Bonner of fraud in printing this account of what 
Cranmer meant to say, when it was the opposite of what he did say, 
and also suggest forgery. But Bonner would not have forged so 
lame and halting a submission, and if he had forged he would also 
have added a signature, if not witnesses and a date. Moreover, he 
only professed to print what Cranmer had written, not what he said. 
Of course, it was not, even so, a very honourable thing to do ; but the 
object was to counteract the immense effect of Cranmer's spoken 
words. 



37^ Thomas Cranmer 

language as its predecessor, and not a word of sub- 
mission to the Pope: apart from the Sacrament it 
merely professes the creed of the English Reform- 
ers. " I believe," he says, " every article of the 
Catholic faith, every clause, word, and sentence 
taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, His Apostles, 
and Prophets in the New and Old Testament and 
all articles explicate and set forth in the General 
Councils." * Could it be that Cranmer was going 
over again in brief the history of his mental develop- 
ment? His previous recantations had carried him 
back to the state of belief in his youth, but they had 
not represented any deep change of conviction, and 
now it seemed that the revulsion had already begun. 
Gradually he began to recover lost ground, and in 
this seventh recantation there is nothing inconsistent 
with his position under Henry VHI. after the breach 
with Rome." 

But the process did not stop here in a half-way 
house ; and a further mental struggle ensued during 
the night between this recantation and the dawn of 



* These significant limitations in this last recantation have riot 
hitherto been noticed, and it is mainly on them that I base the above 
view that Cranmer's mind had begun to react earlier than is usually 
supposed. Canon Mason puts the change as late as the scene in St. 
Mary's on the 21st, but the alterations of this seventh writing which 
Cranmer made in his oral address lead so naturally to his conclusion 
that they can scarcely have been improvised on the moment. I feel 
sure that they must have been thought out before he left his 
prison. 

* It maybe worth noting that there is no mention of the Ave Maria 
after the Lord's Prayer in this document, and that the Lord's Prayer 
was in English, not in Latin. 



In the Hour of Death 377 

his dying day/ Of that night of agony we have no 
record, but it needs none to depict the depth of 
Cranmer's conflicting emotions, his shame and hu- 
mihation, his dread of approaching torture and of 
the yet more dark hereafter, his intense desire to 
salve his conscience, and his aching to be at peace. 
The papist tractarian tells us that he sought comfort in 
the Penitential Psalms, but we may be sure that pe- 
titions from his own great Litany sprang no less 
readily to his lips : 

" that it may please Thee to succour, help, and comfort 
all that be in danger, necessity, and tribulation . . . 
and to show Thy pity upon all prisoners and captives ; 
. . . that it may please Thee to bring into the way of 
truth all such as have erred and are deceived . . . 
that it may please Thee to strengthen such as do stand, 
and to comfort and help the weak-hearted, and to raise 
up them that fall, and finally to beat down Satan under 
our feet." 



^ There are several stories about Cranmer's last night which are 
mutually destructive and cannot be corroborated. Foxe says he was 
visited by Garcia early in the morning and induced to sign copies of 
* ' articles " ; this is almost certainly wrong, for the Government 
would assuredly have published these " articles" with the other sub- 
missions. Neither Foxe nor the author of the Recantacyons is to be 
trusted implicitly {cf. Dixon, iv., 525-526). According to the Re- 
cantacyons, Cranmer supped and talked with companions till a late 
hour, and then slept peacefully till five o'clock. If that is so, it 
is difficult to see where he found time to compose his last recantation 
and speech ; and the further statement that he signed fourteen cop- 
ies of it in the morning of the 21st is incredible, for if such was the 
case, how was it that the Government could not find a single signed 
%opy to print, but printed one without any signature at all? 



378 Thomas Cranmer 

The morning broke in a storm of rain, and the 
crowds which thronged St. Mary*s came out to see 
a reed shaken with the wind. The reed was bent 
and sorely bruised, but it was not broken yet ; even 
now it might be fashioned into a rod. To St. Mary's 
Cranmer was led in procession between two friars, and 
as they approached the doors a significant Nunc 
Dimittis was raised. Inside, Cranmer was placed on a 
stage opposite the pulpit,^ from which Dr. Cole was to 
preach a sermon. Cranmer had given no sign to Cole 
or the friars who visited him in the morning ; but he 
had told a poor woman, on whom he bestowed some 
money, that he would sooner have the prayers of a 
good layman than those of a bad priest. That boded 
ill for his final profession, and both Romanists and 
Reformers passed from hope to fear and from fear to 
hope as they witnessed Cranmer's demeanour. He 
was made the touchstone of truth, and his foes them- 
selves had determined that his conduct should test 
the strength of the two forms of faith. 

He stood there, ** an image of sorrow,'* while Cole 
delivered his not unmerciful sermon.' With more 



* " The pillar on the north side of the nave of St. Mary's where 
Cranmer stood has a cut in it, a foot or two from the ground, where 
it was hewn to receive the wooden stand on which he was placed. 
Cole's pulpit of stone was exactly opposite, a few inches eastward of 
the present wooden pulpit on the south side. The front of that pul- 
pit has been preserved and is built into the wall above a door in the 
church." — Dixon, iv., 527, note. 

* It was charity itself compared with the terms of Cranmer's sixth 
recantation ; with regard to the Divorce, for instance. Cole admitted 
that Cranmer acted ' ' not of malice, but by the persuasion and ad- 
vicp of certain learned men." 



In the Hour of Death 379 

kindliness than consistency he recalled for Cranmer's 
comfort the fate of the three faithful children of 
Israel, who refused to bow before the false god 
which the King had set up, and passed through 
the fire unscathed. When he had ended he 
asked them all to pray for the contrite sinner. 
Cranmer knelt with the congregation. Then he 
rose and gave thanks for their prayers, and began 
to read from a paper he held in his hand.* It 
was his seventh recantation — amended. First 
came a prayer — " the last and sublimest of his 
prayers ' " ; then followed four exhortations. He 
besought his hearers to care less for this world and 
more for God and the world to come ; to obey the 
King and Queen, not for fear of them only, but much 
more for the fear of God, for whosoever resisted 
them resisted God's ordinance ; to love one another 
like brothers and sisters and do good to all men ; 
and finally he reminded the rich how hard it was for 
them to enter the kingdom of heaven, and moved 
them to charity ; for what was given to the poor was 
given to God.' 

* Lingard says he had two papers, one a copy of a recantation, the 
other a retractation of them all ; the first was to be used if a pardon 
came, the second if he was to die. His real intention was to burn the 
recantation as he did his hand. The Venetian ambassador says he 
actually did this ; the Recantacyons says it was taken from him be- 
fore he was bound to the stake. 

'Dixon, iv., 534. 

'The most authoritative account of these final scenes is the British 
Museum Harleian MS., 422, ff., 48-53 ; this consists really of two 
documents ; (i) a letter of a Roman Catholic signed J. A., and written 
to a friend on 23 March, two days after the execution which it de- 
scribes; (2) a paper heade4 " Crannjer's Words before his Death," 



380 Thomas Cranmer 

" And now," he went on, " forasmuch as I have tome 
to the last end of my life, whereupon hangeth all my life 
past and all my life to come, either to live with my Sav- 
iour Christ for ever in joy, or else to be in pains ever with 
the wicked devils in hell ; and I see before mine eyes pre- 
sently either heaven ready to receive me, or else hell 
ready to swallow me up : I shall therefore declare unto 
you my faith without colour or dissimulation ; for now 
is no time to dissemble whatsoever I have written in 
time past." * 

Then Cranmer began the real work of that day. 
Having recited the Lord's Prayer in English he 
began the profession of faith contained in the seventh 
recantation ; but now he declared no unlimited belief 
in General Councils. He had completely re-covered 
the ground lost in his recantations and re-gained the 
position of 1552.' If his audience perceived the drift 
of these changes, the tension must have grown al- 
most unbearable. The climax was reached ; his trial 
was over, his triumph began. 

written in the same hand and enclosed with the letter ; this was ap- 
parently copied by J. A. from a still earlier MS., written possibly 
on the very day of execution. Strype has manipulated these two 
documents so as to form a continuous narrative (Dixon, iv., 532-533). 
Another narrative {Harleian MS., 417, ff., 90, et seq.) is printed in 
Nichols's Narratives of the Reformation, pp. 218-233. The next in 
value is that of the Venetian ambassador, written on 24 March. 

' The last phrase of Cranmer's conveyed no sure indication to 
others, but it was a significant departure from the seventh recantation 
he had written in prison the day before; that ran, "whatsover I 
have said, preached, or written in time past," and referred to his 
Reforming activity. By leaving out ' ' said, preached, or " he now 
indicated his written recantations. 

' The Forty-two Articles of that year admitted that General Coun- 
cils might err. 




PORTRAIT OF CRANMER DURING THE REIQN OF EDWARD VI. 

FROM THE ORIGINAL PICTURE AT LAMBETH PALACE. 



In the Hour of Death 381 

*' And now I come to the great thing that so troubleth 
my conscience, more than any other thing that I said or 
did in my life : and that is my setting abroad of writings 
contrary to the truth, which here now I renounce and 
refuse as things written with my hand contrary to the 
truth which I thought in my heart, and written for fear 
of death, and to save my life, if it might be ; and that is 
all such bills which I have written or signed with mine 
own hand since my degradation ; wherein I have written 
many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand of- 
fended in writing contrary to my heart, it shall be first 
burned. And as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's 
enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine. And 
as for the Sacrament " 

He got no farther ; his foes had been dumb with 
amazement, but now their pent-up feelings broke 
loose. '* Stop the heretic's mouth ! " cried Cole, 
" take him away ! " *' Play the Christian man," said 
Lord Williams ; " remember your recantations and 
do not dissemble." " Alas, my lord," replied Cran- 
mer, " I have been a man that all my life loved plain- 
ness, and never dissembled till now against the truth ; 
which I am most sorry for" ; and he seized the oc- 
casion to add that as for the Sacrament he believed 
as he had taught in his book against the Bishop of 
Winchester. The tumult redoubled. Cranmer was 
dragged from the stage and led out towards the stake. 

There was no need of a spur for his lagging steps. 
His desire was now to be gone. He had done with 
the quicksands of logic, legal formulas, and constitu- 
tional maxims, and had gained a foothold in con- 
science. The fight had been long and bitter, but he 



382 Thomas Cranmer 

had reached a conclusion at length ; he had " pro- 
fessed a good profession before many witnesses." 
The Reformation would not be shamed in him, and 
the gates of hell should not prevail against it. Over 
it^ as over his own ashes, he would write the legend 
Resurgam. Eagerly he pressed forward to the scene 
of his final victory, and the friars could scarcely keep 
pace. Through Brasenose Lane and out of the gate 
by St. Michael's they sped to a spot in the present 
Broad Street in front of Balliol College ; there Ridley 
and Latimer had suffered six months before, and now 
it is marked by a plain stone cross ^ in the ground. 

The friars ceased not to ply him with exhor- 
tations; "Die not in desperation," cried one; 
"Thou wilt drag innumerable souls to hell," said 
another. But Cranmer was out of their reach ; it 
was not to perdition that he thought those souls 
would go. Cheerfully he put off his upper garments 
and stood in his shirt, which reached to the ground. 
There was no hair on his head, but a long white 
beard flowed over his breast. He was then bound 
to the stake with a steel band,' and light was set to 

' The Martyrs' Memorial stands round the corner in St. Giles's ; 
it was erected in 1842 in spite of the opposition of the Tractarians 
(see Liddon, Life of Pusey, ii., 64-76). The spot was then an 
empty ditch, probably the remains of a moat which ran round the 
old city walls. Pusey thought it "not respectful that carts, etc., 
should drive over the place where [the martyrs] yielded up their 
somIs'* {ibid., ii., 66). The "carts, etc." are now kept off by an 
electric-light standard which obstructs the road. 

' The steel band is still preserved in private hands ; see Gentle- 
tnarCs Magazine, July, 1857, pp. 61, 75 ; the account of moneys 
paid for the faggots and furze used at the execution is printed by 
Strype, 



In the Hour of Death 383 

the hundred and fifty faggots of furze and the hun- 
dred faggots of wood which made up his funeral 
pyre. As the flames leapt up, he * stretched out his 
right hand, saying with a loud voice, " This hand 
hath offended," and held it steadfastly in the fire 
until it was burnt to ashes. Thus openly did he 
proclaim his faith by the gesture in which the mind 
of posterity paints him. No one could falsify that 
recantation ; it was a sign which none could misread. 
His body might perish, but his cause was won. He 
saw the travail of his soul and was satisfied. 

" His patience in the torment," writes a hostile eye-wit- 
ness, " his courage in dying, if it had been taken either 
for the glory of God, the wealth of his country, or the 
testimony of truth, as it was for a pernicious error, and 
subversion of true religion, I could worthily have com- 
mended the example, and matched it with the fame of 
any Father of ancient time." 

No cry escaped his lips, no movement betrayed 



^ The Venetian ambassador says: "At the moment that he was 
taken to the stake he drew from his bosom the identical writing 
(probably the Fifth Recantation), throwing it in the presence of the 
multitude with his own hands into the flames, asking pardon of God 
and of the people for having consented to such an act, which he ex- 
cused by saying that he did it for the public benefit, as, had his life, 
which he sought to save, been spared him, he might at some time 
have still been of use to them, praying them all to persist in the doc- 
trine believed by him, and absolutely denying the Sacrament and 
the supremacy of the Church. And, finally, stretching forth his arm 
and right hand, he said : ' This which has sinned, having signed the 
Writing, must be the first to suffer punishment,' and thus did he 
place it in the fire and burned it himself," 

26 



3^4 Thomas Cranmer 

his pain, save that once with his unburnt hand he 
wiped his forehead. The flames might scorch and 
consume his flesh, but his spirit had found repose; 
for conscience had ceased to torment, and a peace 
which passed understanding pervaded his soul. 



INDEX 



Abel, Thomas, 86 note 
Acton, Lord, Preface, vii note 
Agnus, the, 204, 273 
X Lasco, John, see Laski 
Alcock, John, Bishop, 14, 16 
Alcock, Thomas, 14 
Aldrich, Robert, Bishop of 

Carlisle, 128 
Aless, Alexander, 279 note 
Alexander, Peter, 269 
Altar, Sacrament of, see 

Eucharist 
Ammonius, Andreas, 92 
Ampthill, 59 
Anabaptists, 123 
Angelo, S., Castle of, 36 
Angus, Earl of, 35 
Annates, Acts of, 54-55, 7°, 

75» 77 
Annebaut, Admiral d', 181 

Antwerp, iii, 113 

Appeals, Acts of, 55-56, 77 

Arches, Coiirt of, 95 

Arthur, Prince, 29, 59, 100 

note 
Articles, the Ten, 102-105, 

108, 120, 126, 212, 226, 

230, 247 
Articles, the Six, 1 28-131, 

133. 135, 137. 143. 146- 
152, 166, 177, 187, 200- 
201, 206 note, 212, 247,249, 
261 
Articles, the Forty- two, 226, 
284-288 



Arundel, Earl of, see Fitz- 

alan 
Ascham, Roger, 14, 319 
Ashes, use of, 207 
Aske, Robert, 108 
Askew, Anne, 180, 182 
Aslacton, 1-4, 6-7, 11, 12, 

323 

Aslacton, William de, 4 

Atkinson, 122 

Attainder, Acts of, 139 note, 
163 

Audience, Court of, 95-96 

Audley, Thomas, Lord Chan- 
cellor, 71, 129, 143, 146, 
179 

Augsburg, Confession of, 222, 
226 

Augsburg, Diet of (1530), 48 

Auricular Confession, 103, 
206 

B 

Baker, Sir John, 146, 150 
Bale, John, 14 note, 15, 91, 

256, 270 
Baptism, 103, 232 
Baptismal Office (1549), the, 

221 
Barcelona, Treaty of, 37 
Barlow, John, 42 note 
Barlow, William, Bishop of 

S. David's, 42 note, 97, 

128, 130, 131, 167, 170, 

192-193, 206 
Barnes, Robert, 21, 86 note, 

143, 180 



385 



386 



Index 



Barton, Elizabeth, 78-79, 80 
Bath, Earl of, 300 
Beatifort, Margaret, 15, 16, 

31 
Beaufort, Thomas, Dtike of 

Exeter, 68 note 
Becket, Thomas, Archbishop, 

52, 72, 117-118, 168 note, 

171 note 
Bedford, Earl of, see Russell 
^ell, John, Bishop of Wor- 

, cester, 135 
Biell-ringing, 178 
Belvoir, 2 
Bible, the, in English, 94, 96, 

97, 105, 109, no, 114, 126, 

166-167 
Bill, William, 285 note 
Bilney, Thomas, 21 
Bingham, Henry, 6 
Bishops, Election of, 202- 

203 note 
Bishops' Book, The, 109, 168, 

171 
Bocardo prison, 342, 346, 

349, 361, 366, 368, 372 
Bocher, Joan, 148, 261-263, 

309 . 
Bohemia, 31, 69, 199 note, 

203 

Boleyn, Anne, 27, 29, 33-34. 
42 note, 44, 53, 58-60, 78- 
79. 93. 96, 98-100, 139, 
161-162, 188, 328 

Boleyn, Mary, 35, 99, 100 
note 

Boleyn, Thomas, Earl of 
Wiltshire, 41, 42, and note, 
44, 68 

Bologna, 44, 52 

Bonner, Bishop, 75, 76, 135, 
141, 191-192, 198-199, 
202, 216, 219, 220, 253, 
254, 261, 310 note, 311, 
345. 358-360, 366, 375 

Bonner, Humphrey, 93 

Bourchier, Archbishop, 324 

Boxall, John, 261 

Boxley, Rood of, 117 



Bradford, John, in, 289, 348 
Bradwardine, Archbishop, 52 
Brandon, Charles, Diike of 

Suffolk, 35, 38 
Brenz, John, 319 
Brittany, Duchess of, 35 
Brooks, James, Bishop of 

Gloucester, 235, 341 note, 

350-351, 369 
Browne, Sir Anthony, 134, 

187 
Bucer (or Butzer) Martin, 

115, 127, 194, 220, 221, 

254, 266, 269, 271, 277- 

278. 319 
Buckingham (afterwards 

Magdalen) College, 18 
Bullinger, Henry, 142, 144, 

181 note, 182, 210, 216, 220, 

251, 265, 269, 270 note, 

274, 319. 334 note 
Burckhardt, Dr., 116, 133 
Burgos, 222 note 
Butler, John, 148 
Butts, Sir William, 152, 155 

note, 156, 315 
Byzantinism, 83 note 



Calais, 122, 136, 146 note, 
148, 164, 234 

Calvin, John, 224, 227, 319 

Calvinism, 185, 220, 225, 270 
note, 303 

Cambrai, Treaty of, 61 

Cambridge University, 12, 13, 
14, 15, 91, 214 

Campeggio, Cardinal, 32, 36, 
37. 38. 67, 314 

Canon Law, 77, 99, 121, 140, 
165, 257, 280-284 

Canterbury Cathedral, re- 
founding of, 145 

Canterbury Cathedral school, 
321-323 

Capon, John, Bishop of Ban- 
gor and Salisbury, 14, 135, 
168 note 



Index 



387 



Capon, William, 14 

Cardinal College (afterward 
Christ Church), Oxford, 20 

Cardmaker, John, 348 

Carlstadt (Bodenstein), An- 
drew, 229 

Cartwright, Edmund, 6 

Cassilis, Earl of, 165 

Castile, King of, 32 

Catechism, Cranmer's, 209- 
211 

Catechism, the Longer and 
Shorter, 222 

Catherine of Aragon, 24, 27, 
29, 79, 99, 100 note, 107, 

115. 132 

Cawood, John, 372 note 
Cecil, William (Burghley), 3, 
209 note, 253, 285, 298 
note, 315, 318 note, 338- 

339 
Celibacy of the Clergy, 18, 50, 

116, 130, 171, 199, 203, 247 
note 

Ceremonies, 166-167, 207 
Chantries, abolition of, 176, 
179, 198 note, 202, 259, 278 
Chapuys, Eustace, 54 note, 
55, 60 note, 70, 93, 100 
note, loi, 102, 161, 164 
Charity, 103, no, 194-195 
Charles V., 25, 26, 33, 36, 

37, 43-44, 47, 52, 55, 75, 
115, 118, 135-136, 178- 
179, 180-181, 264, 268, 
287 note, 295 
Charles VIII., 25 
Chedsey, William, 344 
Cheke, Sir John, 237 note, 

281, 285 
Chertsey Abbey, 215 
Cheyney, Sir Thomas, 338 
Chicheley, Archbishop, 324 
Chichester, Bishops of, see 

Sampson and Day 
Christina of Milan, 118 note 
Chubbes, William, 14 
Cistercians, 199 note 
Civil Law, 178 note 



Clement VII., 26, 32, 36, 37, 

44, 45, 5°, 52-56, 63, 67, 

75, 76, 99, 213 note 
Cleves, Anne of, loi, 118, 

133-135, 140-143 
Cleves, William, Diike of, 118- 

119 
Clifford, Lady Margaret, 293 
Coinage, debasement of, 259 
Cole, Dr. Henry, 261, 374, 

378-381 
Cologne, Archbishop of, see 

Wied, Hermann von 
Common Prayer, First Book 

of, 165-166, 213-223, 226, 

237, 247, 271 
Common Prayer, Second 

Book of, 185, 271-274, 275, 

334 . 

Communion Service, 181, 199, 
203-207, 208, 215, 272, 334 

Compline, 204, 214 

Confirmation, 232 

Consubstantiation, 235, 240- 
241 

Convocation, 46, 58, 70-71, 
77, 82, 96, 97, 102-103, 
130, 140-141, 165 note, 
166, 167, 168 note, 171, 
190, 198-200, 212-214, 
287-288 

Cope, Alan, 361 note 

Copland, William, 372 note 

Cornwall, rising in, 247-250 

Councils, General, 8r, 107, 
228, 248, 287,357, 366,371 

Coverdale, Miles, Bishop of 
Exeter, 21, in, 180, 269 

Cox, Dr., 206 

Cranmer, Agnes, 5 

Cranmer, Edmund de, 4, 5, 8 

Cranmer, Archdeacon Ed- 
mund, 8, 11, 324, 327 note 

Cranmer, Emmet, 6 

Cranmer, Hugh de, 3, 4 

Cranmer, Isabella, 4 

Cranmer, Joan (Archbishop's 
ist wife), 17 

Cranmer, John, 5, 7 



388 



Index 



Criamner, Margaret, 6 

Cranmer, Margaret (Arch- 
bishop's 2d wife), 50, 326- 
327 

Cranmer, Thomas (Archbish- 
op's father), 5-12 

Cranmer, Thomas (Archbish- 
op), birth and parentage, 
3-10; arms, 3; brothers 
and sisters, 5-6 ; his severe 
schoolmaster, 9-10; skill 
in physical exercises, 10; 
his inheritance, 11-12; 
enters at Jesus College, 
Cambridge, 12; education 
there, 13-14; contempor- 
ary scholars and influ- 
ences, 14-16; relations 
with Erasmus, 17; first 
marriage, 17-18; death of 
his wife, 18; re-elected fel- 
low of Jesus, 18; his Bibli- 
cal studies, 19-22 ; tutor to 
the Cressys at Waltham, 
22-23; influence of divorce 
of Catherine of Aragon on 
his life, 24-38; first meet- 
ing with Henry VIII., 39- 
40; his opinion on the di- 
vorce, 40 ; retained for the 
King's service, 41 ; sent 
on an embassy to Italy, 
42 ; efforts to win over for- 
eign universities, 42-44; at 
Rome, 45; consulted on 
Pole's book, 46; arch- 
deacon of Taunton, 47; 
ambassador to Charles V., 
47; negotiations in Ger- 
many, 48 ; second marriage 
49-50; letters to Henry 
VIII., 51 ; recalled and 
designated Archbishop of 
Canterbury, 5 2 ; election 
an d consecration , 5 4-5 6 ; 
his protest respecting his 
oath to the Pope, 56-58; 
pronounces Henry's mar- 
riage with Catherine in- 



valid and that with Anne 
valid, 59; crowns Anne 
Boleyn and stands god- 
father to Elizabeth, 60; 
position as Archbishop 
under Henry, 61-71; his 
responsibility for the sur- 
render of the Church, 73; 
sends a pall to the Arch- 
bishop of York, 74; ap- 
peals against the Pope, 75- 
76; dealings with the Nun 
of Kent and Sir T. More, 
78-80; his indebtedness to 
Wy cliff e, 90, 91 ; first meas- 
ures of reform as arch- 
bishop, 94; visits his pro- 
vince, 95 ; urges the trans- 
lation of the Bible into 
English and the appoint- 
ment of reforming Bishops, 
96-97; intervenes on be- 
half of Anne Boleyii, 98; 
pronounces her divorce, 
99-100; stands godfather 
to Edward VI., 10 1; at- 
tacks the Pope and purga- 
tory, 103; revises the Ten 
Articles, 103; attacked by 
the rebels of 1536, 107- 
108; secures an authorised 
version of the Bible in 
English, 1 09-1 12; " Cran- 
mer 's Bible," 113; favours 
an alliance with the Ger- 
man Protestants, 11 5-1 16; 
controversy with a Kent- 
ish magistrate, 120; his 
views on divorce, 121; 
on Transubstantiation and 
toleration, 1 2 2-123 ; op- 
poses the Act of Six Arti- 
cles in Parliament, 128; 
and in Convocation, 130; 
remains Archbishop in 
spite of them, 132 ; his peril, 
133-134; entertains Anne 
of Cleves, 134; marries her 
to Henry, 135; intercedes 



Index 



389 



Cranmer, (Continued) 

for Cromwell, 139; divorces 
Anne of Cleves, 140—142; 
denounces prebendaries 
144-145; their plot against 
htm, 146-150; Henry pro- 
tects him, 151-1^2; Gost- 
wick attacks him, 153; 
the Council attacks him, 
1 54-1 5 5 ; again protected 
by Henry, 156-157; rela- 
tions between Henrjr and 
Cranmer, 159-160; inter- 
cedes for Mary, 161-162; 
communicates to Henry 
Catherine Howard's mis- 
conduct, 162-163; engaged 
on political afifairs, 164- 
165; his schemes of re- 
form, 165-166; attempts 
to stem reaction, 166-168; 
criticism of Henry VIII., 
169; his views on royal 
supremacy, 170; his work 
on the Litany, 172-175; 
last attempts at reform 
under Henry, 1 78-181; at 
Henry's death-bed, 182; 
supports Protector Somer- 
set and crowns Edward VI. , 
184-186; first reforms un- 
der Edward VI., 187-193; 
Cranmer 's Book of Homi- 
lies, 193, 194; proposes the 
administration of the Sac- 
rament in both elements, 
1^9; supports repeal of 
Six Articles, 200; votes 
against Chantries Bill, 202 ; 
his share in the first Order 
of Communion, 204-206; 
publishes catechism of Jus- 
tus Jonas, 209; Zwinglian 
view of him, 210; abandons 
the doctrine of the Real 
Presence, 211 ; his work on 
the First Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, 213-215; ad- 
opts Zwinglian views of 



the Sacrament, 2 1 6-2 1 7 ; 
speech in the House of 
Lords, 218; his draft of 
Communion Service modi- 
fied, 219-220; acquaint- 
ance with contemporary 
liturgies, 221; his position 
as archbishop, 226; devel- 
opment of his religious 
opinions , 228-244; atti- 
tude towards the Bible, 
228-229; towards papal 
jurisdiction and doctrine, 
229-230 ; views on justifica- 
tion, 231, on the number 
of the sacraments, 232, on 
the ecclesiastical power of 
princes, 23 2-233 > on Holy 
Orders, 233, on confession 
and excommunication, 234; 
on Transubstantiation and 
on the Real Presence, 235- 
245 ; controversies with 
Gardiner and Dr. Richard 
Smith, 236; his Defence of 
the True Doctrine of the 
Sacrament, 237—243; al- 
leged authorship of A 
Confutation of Unwritten 
Verities, 243 note ; his 
answer to the Western 
Rebels in 1549, 247-250; 
sympathy with social 
grievances, 251; share in 
Somerset's fall, 253-254; 
relations with Northum- 
berland, 255-256, 260; con- 
duct with regard to Joan 
Bocher, 261-263, and in 
the vestments controv- 
ersy, 265-267; desires a 
Reformed General Council, 
267; entertains distin- 
guished strangers at Lam- 
beth, 268-269; share in the 
Second Book of Common 
Prayer, 271-274; in oppo- 
sition to Northimiberland, 
277-290; on the practice of 



390 



Index 



Cranmer, (Continued) 

kneeling, 279; on Canon 
Law, 280-284; draws up 
the Forty- two Articles, 
284-288 ; suggested as Lord 
Keeper, 290; opposes Ed- 
ward VI. 's "devise," 298- 
299; his alleged subserv- 
iency, 304-307, and dis- 
simtilation, 307-309; his 
dislike of persecution, 309- 
310; his views of Church 
and State, 31 1-3 13; his 
humility, 313-314, and 
guilelessness, 315-316,339; 
his learning and library, 
316-320; patronage ^of 
learned men, 320-321 ; lib- 
eral views on education, 
321-322; his alleged ne- 
potism, 323-324; manage- 
ment of his estates, 324- 
325; family life, 325-326; 
his wife and children, 326- 
327 note; his courage, 328- 
329; his personal ap;pear- 
ance, 327 note; officiates 
at Edward VI. 's funeral, 
332 ; refuses to flee abroad, 
332; denounces the Mass 
and offers to defend the 
Reformation, 333-334; his 
manifesto, 335; is sent to 
the Tower, and tried for 
treason, 336 ; spared for the 
time, 337; writes to the 
Queen for pardon, 338; his 
anomalous position, 340; 
alleged pardon, 341 ; trans- 
ferred to Oxford, 342 ; dis- 
putations there, 343-345; 
"denounced" at Rome by 
Philip and Mary, 349; 
trial at Oxford, 350-351; 
defends his conduct in a 
letter to Mary, 352-353; 
excommunicated and de- 
prived by the Pope, 354; 
professes his readiness to 



die for his faith, 355; 
burnt in effigy at Rome, 
356; appeals to a General 
Council, 357-358; his de- 
gradation by Bonner and 
Thirlby, 358-360; his first 
recantations, 361-366 ; con- 
flict between his conscience 
and duty to the State, 363- 
364; fifth or real recanta- 
tion, 369; causes of it, 
370-371 ; sixth recantation, 
373-374; seventh recanta- 
tion, 375 ; his mind recoils, 
376; his last night, 377; 
his final tritimph, 378-384 
Cressy family, 22 note, 38, 39 
Croke, Dr. Richard, 41, 44, 45 
Crome, Dr., 21, 145, 176, 179 
Cromwell, Thomas, 39, 47, 
68, 70 note, 71, 79, 96, 97, 
103, 105, 108 note, III— 
114, 118-119, 123, 127- 
130, 132; 133, 134-139, 157, 
159. 161, 179, 180, 315, 328 
Cross, Creeping to the, 178, 

207 
Crowley, Robert, 251 note 
Croydon, 182 



D 



Damplip, Adam, 122, 234 
Darcy, Thomas, Lord, 291, 

298 
Day, George, Bishop of Chi- 
chester, 199, 202, 215, 257, 

261, 306 
Denny, Sir Anthony, 152 
Derby, 5 
Devon, R., 2 
Devonshire, rising in, 247- 

250 
Divorce, Law of, 24 note, 

121, 140-141, 283-284 
Divorce of Catherine of Ara- 

gon, 25-60 
Divorce of Anne Boleyn, 98- 

100 



Index 



391 



Divorce of Catherine Howard, 
163 

Dolphin Inn, The, 17, 18 

Dorset, Marquis of, see Grey, 
Henry 

Dryander, Francis, 220, 222 
note, 269 

Du Bellay, John, Cardinal, 
34 note, 67, 68 

Duchesne, see Dryander 

Dudley, Andrew, 293 

Dudley, Guilford, 293, 336 

Dudley, John (Northumber- 
land), vi, 181, 246, 252- 
259, 263-264, 276, 281, 
285, 288-295, 330-331, 367 

Duns Scotus, 13 

Dunstable, 59 

Durham, Bishops of, see 
Ruthal and Tunstall 



E 



Eccleston, John, 14 

Eck, Dr., 320 

Edward III., 31, 10 1, 201 

Edward VI., loi, 184-186, 

262, 266, 2^2, 295-300; 

reign of, misunderstood, 

246-247 
Elizabeth, Princess, 53, 60, 

61, 99, 134, 155 note, 156 

note, 186 note, 203 note, 
Ely, Bishops of, see Goodrich 

and Thirlby 
Ely Cathedral, 14 
Elyot, Sir Thomas, 14 
Enzinas, Francis, see Dry- 
ander 
Epistolce Obscurorum Viro- 

rum, 93 
Erasmus, 16-17, ^9' 9^> 169, 

193. 195. 197. 320 
Estienne, Robert, 320 
Eucharist, 103-104, 114, 138, 

140, 190, 199, 209, 211, 

218, 220, 237, 272 
Exeter, Dean of, see Heynes 



Faber, Johann, 16 
Fagius, Paul, 220, 269 
Featherstone, Richard, 86 

note 
Ferdinand of Aragon, 29 
Ferdinand, Archduke, 51 
Ferrar, Robert, Bishop of St. 

Davids, 257, 348 
Fisher, John, Bishop of Re Ch- 
ester, and Cardinal, 15, 69, 

74, 78-79, 80-81, 159, 328 
Fitzalan, Henry, Earl of 

Anmdel, 258, 319 note, 337 
Forrest, Friar John, 123 note 
Fosse Way, i 
Foxe, Edward, Bishop of 

Hereford, 38, 39, 40, 42, 

97, 103, 109 
Foxe, John, the Martyrolo- 

gist, 92, 131, 147, 182, 188, 

262 
Foxe, Richard, Bishop of 

Winchester, 66, 160 note 
Francis I., 43, 48, 50-51, 58 

note, 75, 76, IIS, 118, 135- 

136, 164, 178, 180-181, 

192, note 
Frederick of Saxony, 39 
Frith, John, 180 

G 

Galileo, 370 

Gardiner, Germain, 152 

Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of 

Winchester, 38-40, 42, 

47 note, 68, 71, 88, 94, 95, 

97, 116 note, 123, 127-128, 

133-134, 137. 141, 146, 
149,150, 152,158,163,166- 
167, 170, 176, 178-179, 
181-182, 187, 191-194 
196-198, 2 1 1-2 1 2 note, 
236-244, 253-254; 260 
note, 261, 271, 297 note, 
310 note, 311, 317, 337 
note, 345, 347, 357 note, 
366 note, 381 



392 



Index 



Gardiner, WilKam, 146-147 

Geneva, 212 

Germany, Protestants of, 48- 
49; 90 note, 115-117, 135- 
136, 180, 209—212, 220, 225 

Gerrard, Thomas, 86 note, 

143 
Glazier, Dr., 193 

Gloria in Excelsis, the, 204 

Gloucester, Bishop of, see 

Hooper, John 
Gloucester, visitation of the 

Bishopric of, 188-189 
Goodrich, Thomas, Bishop of 

Ely, 14 note, 15, 128, 131, 

167, 168 note, 202—203, 

257, 261, 290 
Good works, doctrine of, 194 
Gostwick, Sir John, 153-154, 

155 note 
Grafton, Richard, iii, 114 

note 
Grantham, i, 2, 5, 9 
Greenwich, 40, 41 note, 60, 

78, ^ZS 

Grey, Lady Catherine, 293 

Grey, Frances, Duchess of 
Suffolk, 293—294 

Grey, Henry, Marquis of 
Dorset and Duke of Suf- 
folk, 256, 293, 338 

Grey, Lady Jane, 293-302, 
336, 342 

Gnndal, Edmund, 285 note 



H 



Haddon, Walter, 281 
Hailes, Blood of, 117 
Hallam, Henry, vi, 304 note 
Hampton Court, 163 
Harley, John, 285 note 
Harpsfield, John, 345 
Harpsfield, Nicholas, 24 note, 

261, 325 note, 326 note, 

361 note 
Harrington, Sir John, 326, 

note 
Hastings, Lord, 293 



Hatfield family, 5 

Heath, Nicholas, Bishop of 
Rochester and Worcester 
and Archbishop of York, 
13s, 199. 202, 257, 261, 265, 
306, 316, 337 

Henri II., 55 

Henry II., 73 

Henry IV., 31, 186 note 

Henry VII., 15, 31, 33, 63, 
186 note 

Henry VIIL, vi, 21, 24-25, 
27-28, motives in divor- 
cing Catherine of Aragon, 
29-30; contemplates the 
succession of his illegiti- 
mate son, 32; scruples re- 
garding his marriage with 
Catherine, 33-34; prece- 
dents for a divorce, 35; 
summons the Reformation 
Parliament, 38; first meets 
Cranmer, 40-41 ; Supreme 
Head, 46, 70, 82; makes 
Cranmer Archbishop, 52; 
outwits the Pope and ob- 
tains Acts of Annates and 
Appeals, 53-56; reasons 
for his success, 53-54; his 
power, 65 ; secularises his 
government, 68; destroys 
the independence of Con- 
vocation, 71 ; compared by 
Warham to Henry II., 73; 
thinks civil courts should 
have cognisance of mar- 
riage, 75; appeals to a 
General Council, 76; com- 
pletes the breach with 
Rome, 77; regulates the 
succession, 78; denounced 
by the Nun of Kent, 78- 
79; his treatment of More 
and Fisher, 80-81; his re- 
ligious views, 83; nature 
and extent of his su- 
premacy, 84-88; his book 
against Luther, 93; ap- 
points Cromwell vicar-gen- 



Index 



393 



Henry VIII., (Continued) 
eral, 97; has Anne Boleyn 
divorced and executed, 98- 
100; marries Jane Sey- 
mour, 1 01; pens the Ten 
Articles, 103; authorises 
the issue of the English 
Bible, 1 1 2-1 1 3 ; reasons for 
permitting reforms, 115; 
refuses to adopt Protest- 
antism, 116; but continues 
spoliation of Church prop- 
erty, 117; is persuaded to 
marry Anne of Cleves, 118; 
his Catholicism, 125; takes 
part in debate on Six 
Articles, 129; respects his 
ministers ' scruples , 132; 
repudiates Anne of Cleves 
and Cromwell, 134-142; 
marries Catherine Howard, 
143; compared by Luther- 
ans to Nero, 144; protects 
Cranmer from his pre- 
bendaries, 1 51-152; and 
from the Council, 155-157; 
his confidence in and re- 
spect for Cranmer, 157- 
1 60 ; marries Catherine 
Parr, 162-163; his share in 
The King's Book, 1 68-1 7 2 ; 
last concessions to reform, 
178-181; death, 182-183 

Herbert, Henry, 2d Earl of 
Pembroke, 293 

Herbert, William, ist Earl of 
Pembroke, 253, 293, 338 

Herbert, Lord, of Cherbury, 

139 
Hereford, Bishop of, see Skip 
Heresy Laws, 1 53, 1 76, 201, 347 
Hertford, Earl of, see Sey- 
mour 
Heynes, Simon, Dean of 

Exeter, 149 
Hilles, Richard, 217 note, 220 
Hilsey, John, Bishop of Roch- 
ester, 97, 128, 130, 131, 135, 
175 



Hoby, Sir Philip, 149 

Hodgkin, Bishop, 299 

Holbeach, Henry, Bishop '» 
Lincoln, 206, 257 

Holbein, Hans, 118, 134 

Holy-days, 120 

Homilies, Book of, 166, 193- 
195, 212 note, 231 

Hooper, John, Bishop of 
Gloucester and Worcester, 
90, 91, 125, 181 note, 220, 
251. 254, 256, 265-267, 
345, 348 

Home, Robert, 285 note, 289 

Houghton, Lord, 303, 361 
note 

Howard, Catherine, loi, 142— 
143; 162-163 

Howard, Henry, Earl of Sur- 
rey, 182, 187 

Howard, Thomas, Duke of 
Norfolk, 128, 136, 138, 
142-143, 157, 161, 179, 
180, 182, 187 

Hus, John, 370 

Hutchinson, Roger, 261, 262 
note 



Images, 103-104, 115, 117. 

120, 148, 178, 189, 195- 

196, 207 
Indulgences, 104 
Injunctions, Cromwell's 

(1536), 105 
Injunctions, Cromwell's 

(1538), 114, 195 
Injunctions of 1547, 193 

195-198 
Innocent III., Pope, 240 
Institution of a Christian 

Man, The, to8, 120 
Intention, doctrine of, 140— 

141 . 
Invocation of Saints, 103— 

104, 171 
Islip, Archbishop, 52 



394 



Index 



James II., 33 note, 43 
Januaritis, S., 117 
Jerome, S., 86 note, 143 
Jerome of Prague, 370 
Jesuits, 303 
Jesus College, Cambridge, 

1 2-10 
John Frederick, Elector of 

Saxony, 48, 123 
John of Gaunt, 31 
Jonas, Justus, 209-210 
Jo}^, George, 180 
Jtiliiis II., Pope, 29 
Justification, doctrine of, 

103-104, 228, 231 note, 286 

K 

Kent, 144 

Kent, the Nun of, see Bar- 
ton, Elizabeth 
Kett, Robert, 252 
Kilwardby, Archbishop, 52 
King's Book, The, 150, 168- 

169, 171— 172 
Kneeling. 278-279 
Knights of St. John, 177 
Knox, John, 256, 278-279, 

285 note, 288-289 
Kyrie Eleison, the, 273 



Lambert {alias Nicholson), 
John, 21, 122—123 

Lambeth, 80, 96, 151, 153, 
165, 207 

Landriano, battle of, 3 7 

Langton, Stephen, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, 52 

Laski, or h. Lasco, John. 216, 
266, 268, 333 

Latimer, Hugh, Bishop of 
Worcester, 21, 61, 90, 97, 
loi, 108 note, 112, 128,130, 
131, 159, 180, 188, 195 
note, 207, 210, 216, 251, 



253, 261, 268, 289, 333. 

335, 342-346, 349. 367 

Laud, Archbishop, 124 

Lautrec, Marshal, 36 

Layton, Dr. Richard, 108 
note 

Lee, Edward, Archbishop of 
York, 42, 44, 108 note, 128 

Leigh, Sir Thomas, 108 note, 
152 

Leland, John, 320 

Lent, observance of, 190, 207 

Lever, Thomas, 261, 289 

Lincoln, 2, 4 

Lincoln, Bishops of, see Long- 
land, Holbeach, and Tay- 
lor 

Lincolnshire Rebellion, 106, 
114 note 

Lingard, Dr., 139 

Lisle, Viscount, see Dudley, 
John 

Litany, the, vi, 172-176, 196 

London, Bishops of, see 
Stokesley, Ridley, and 
Bonner 

London, Dr. John, 108 note, 

149, 152 . 

Longland, Bishop, 30 note, 
108 note, 162 

Lorraine, Duke of, 135 

Louis XII., 27, 35 

Ludlow, 323 

Luther, Martin, and Luther- 
anism, 19, 27, 63, 65, 90, 
92, 93. 104, III, 127, 209- 
210, 216, 220-221, 224, 
225, 226-227, 229, 240, 
319. 356 

M 

Macaulay, Lord, vi, 304 note, 

316 note 
Maidstone, 117 
Mantua, 52 
Margaret Tudor, Queen of 

Scotland, 35 
Marillac, Charles de, 137 



Index 



395 



Markham, Sir John, 326 note 
Marseilles, 50, 75, 76 note 
Marshall, William, 175, 233 

note 
Marsiglio of Padua, 233 note 
Martyn, Thomas, 235-236, 

350 
Martyr, Peter, see Vermigli 
Martyrs' Memorial, the, 382 

note 
Mary, Queen, vi, 30-33, 99, 
161-162, 186 note, 193, 
197, 219, 253, 260, 263, 
276, 29s, 300, 304, 328, 
330. 346-348, 365-367 
Mary Tudor, Duchess of 

Suffolk, 35, 293 
Mason, Sir John, 338 
Mass, the, 181, 205, 212, 272, 
287, 334; see also Euchar- 
ist 
Masses, Private, 116, 125 
Matilda, Empress, 31 
Matthew's Bwle, in note 
May, William, Dean of St. 

Paul's, 208 
Medici, Catherine de', 55 
Melanchthon, Philip, 63, 133, 

136, 221, 226, 269, 319 
Melfi, 36 

Meopham, Archbishop, 52 
Micronius, Martin, 266 note, 

269 
Molyneux, Sir Thomas, 5 
Monasteries, dissolution of, 

97, 106, 117, 126 
Monmouth, Dtike of, 33 note 
Montague, Chief- Justice, 296 
More, Sir Thomas, vii, 21, 27 
note, 68, 71, 78-79, 80-81, 
93, no note, 131-132, 192 
note, 201 note, 238, 261, 
306, 328, 364 
Morice, Ralph, 9, 40, 41, 133- 
134, 152, 154-155 iiote, 
157, 213 note, 315 note, 
316, 317, 318 note, 323- 

325,35 
Morwen 



, Dr., 261 



Moyle, Sir Thomas, 146, 149, 

150 
Mozarabic Use, the, 221-222 

note 

N 

Necessary Doctrine and Er- 
udition for any Christian 
Man, see King's Book, 
The 
Nevinson, Dr. Christopher, 6 

note, 130, 148, 318 note 
Nevinson, Stephen, 318 note 
Newark, 2, 9 
Newman, Cardinal 124 
New Monarchy, the, 303, 312 
Nicholas II., Pope, 240 
North, Sir Edward, 68 
Northampton, Marquis of, see 

Parr, William 
Northumberland, Duke of, 

see Dudley, John 
Norton, Thomas, 327 note 
Norwich, Bishops of, see 

Repps and Thirlby 
Nottingham, i, 2, 9 
Numberg, 49, 220 

O 

Ochino, Bernardino, 268 

(Ecolampadius, 319 

Orders, Holy, doctrine of, 

168-170 
Ordinal of 1550, 257, 264- 

266, 273 
Osiander, 49-50, 94, 121, 221, 

320 
Otford, 325 
Oxford, Cranmer at, 342-384 



Paget, Sir William, 184, 185, 
253-254, 338 

Pall, the Archbishop's, 74 
and note, 360 

Palmer, Sir Thomas, 331 note 

Palmer, the Rev. Sir Wil- 
liam, 213 note 



39^ 



Index 



Palms, tise of, 207 

Papacy, secularisation of 

the, 26 
Parker, Matthew, Archbishop 

of York, 61 
Parliament, the Reforma- 
tion, 38, 40, 41, 46, 68, 69 
Parliament of 1539, 127-130 
Parliament of 1545, 176-178 
Parliament of 1547, 190, 199- 

203 
Parliament of 1548, 218-220 
Parliament of 1549, 255, 257 
Parliament of 1552, 275-276 
Parliament of 1553 (March), 

290-291 
ParUament of 1553 (Octo- 
ber), 330 
Parliament of 1554, 347 
Parliamentary Procedure, 

177 
Parr, Catherine, 163, 164 
Parr, William, Marquis of 
Northampton, 291, 298, 

338 
Parris, George van, 263 

Parsons, Robert, 326 note 
Paul, St., 311, 373 
Paul III., Pope, 213 
Paulet, William, Marquis of 

Winchester, 297 note, 337 
Peckham, Archbishop, 52, 

199 note 
Penance, doctrine of, 103- 

104, no 
Penance, Cranmer's views of, 

232 
Percy, Henry, Earl of North- 
umberland, 99, 100 note 
Peme, Andrew, 285 note 
Peter, St., 311, 370 
Peter's jjence, 77 
Petre, Sir William, 103, 159 

note, 338 
Philip II., King of England, 

340 note, 348-349 
Pmlip of Hesse, 48, 121 
Philpot, John, 263 
Pia Consultatio, the, 221 



Pilgrimage of Grace, 106 
Pilgrimages, 105-106, 120, 

.317 
Pinkie, battle of, 204 

Pirckheimer, Wilibald, 320 

Pole, Reginald, Cardinal, 27, 

46, 52, 74 note, 214 note, 

250. 341, 355» 366-367, 

^ 373-374 . 

Pomeroy, Giles de la, 54 note 
Ponet, John, Bishop of Win- 
chester, 258 note, 260, 287 

note 
Pontefract, 107 
Poullain, Valerand, 269 
Powell, Edward, 86 note 
PrcBmunire, 70, 134 note, 

197—198, 202, 249 
Prebendaries, Plot of the, 

144-152 
Predestination, 228 
Press, liberty of the, 201- 

202, 209 
Primers, Henry VIII.'s, 174, 

175, 257 
Processions, 172 note, 196 
Proclamations, 189, 190, 201, 

207 
Protector, the, see Se5miour 
Protestantism, use of the 

term, 90 note; growth of, 

in England, 90-95 
Psalms in English, 204 
Purgatory, doctrine of, 102, 

104, 109, 115, 120, 176, 

179, 230-231, 317, 369 
Pusey, Dr., 124 



Q 



Quignon, Cardinal, 213-214, 
221 



R 



Rastell, William, 261 
Rationale of Rites and Cere- 
monies, 167 
Ratisbon, 48, 51, 146 



Index 



397 



Real Presence, doctrine of, 

104, 215-220, 234-244, 272 
Recantacyons, Bishop Cran- 

mer's, 361 note 
Reformatio Legum Ecclesias- 

ticarum, 280-284 
Reformation, the, alleged 

origin of, 25, 65 ; causes of, 

188; character of, 104, 224- 

226, 303, 308, 353 
Renaissance, the, 303, 311- 

312 
Renard, Simon, 331, 335, 337 
Repps, William, Bishop of 

Norwich, 128, 199, 202 
Rich, Richard, ist Baron, 

108, 179, 180, 261, 289, 

321 note 
Richard II., 201 
Richmond, Duke of, 32, 33 
Ridley, Dr. Lancelot, 146- 

147. 173 
Ridley, Nicholas, Bishop of 
Rochester and London, 90, 
91, 145, 193. 206, 216 note, 
217, 218, 257, 259, 261- 
262, 264, 266-267, 268, 
289, 290 note, 299, 317, 

332-333. 342-346, 349, 367 
Rochester, Bishops of, see 

Heath, Hilsey, Ridley, and 

Scory 
Rogers, John, 11 r, 270, 347 
Rogers, Sir Edward, 326 

note 
Roman Civil Law, 312 
Rome, sack of, 26 
Rosell, Dorothy, 5 
Rosell, Harold, 5 
Rosell, Thomas, 9 
Roses, Wars of the, 31, 63 
Rubric, the Black, 279 
Rubric Ornaments, the, 273 

note 
Russell, John, ist Earl of 

Bedford, 156, 253, 297 

note, 337 
Ruthal, Thomas, Bishop of 

Dtirham, 66 



S 



Sacrament of the Altar, the, 

see Eucharist 
Sacraments, the Seven, 104— 

105, 108-109, i^^6, 171 
Sadleir, Sir Ralph, 137 note 
Saints, Invocation of, 103- 

104 
Salisbury, Bishops of, see 

Shaxton and Capon 
Salisbury, Countess of (Mar- 
garet Pole), 139 
Sampson, Richard, Bishop of 

Chichester, 133, 137 
Sanders, Nicholas, 326 note 
Sarum Use, the, 212-214, 221 
Savonarola, 370 
Scarrington, i 
Schmalkaldic League, 48, 

125, 180 
Scory, Edmund, Bishop of 

Rochester, 146, 147, 335 
Selve, Odet de, 211 
Series, Robert, 146 note, 147- 

148 
Seymotu", Edward, Duke of 

Somerset, vi, 143, 182, 184- 

187, 190, 191, 197, 199- 

200, 206-208, 211, 214, 

219, 246, 251-254, 264, 

27s. 291, 302, 330-331, 341 
Seymour, Jane, loi, 184 
Seymour, Thomas, Lord High 

Admiral, 248 note, 252, 

258 note 
Shakespeare, 30 note, 60 

note, 154, 316 note 
Sharington, Sir WilUam, 258 

note 
Shaxton, Nicholas, Bishop of 

Salisbiuy, 97, 128, 130, 

131. 135. 159, 180 
Sherwood Forest, 2 
Shether, Edmund, 147 
Shrewsbury (Francis Talbot), 

Earl of, 338 
Siddall, Henry, 368 note, 372 

note 



398 



Index 



Skip, John, Bishop of Here- 
ford, 13s, 199, 202 
Sleidan, John, 320-321 
Smite, River, 2 
Smith, Dr. Richard, 236, 238, 

261, 317 
Smith, Sir Thomas, 253 
Smithfield, 180 
Solway Moss, 165 
Somerset, Duke of, see Sey- 
mour, Edward 
Somerset House, 208 
Soto, Pedro de, 362, 372 
Southampton, Earl of, see 

Wriothesley, Thomas 
Southwell, 9 

Southwell, Sir Richard, 258 
Spires, Diet of (1529), 90 note 
Stafileo, Dean of the Rota, 30 

note 
Stanley, James, Bishop of 

Ely, 16 
Stemhold, Thomas, 149, 204 
Stokesley, John, Bishop of 
London, 42, 44, 45, 60 
note, 94-95,97, 122, 128, 13s 
Story, Dr. John, 350 
Strassburg, 181 note 
Succession, Act of, 78, 80 
Suffolk, Dukes of, see Bran- 
don, Charles ; Grey, Henry 
Suffolk, Duchess of, see Mary 

Tudor: Grey, Frances 
Supremacy, Act of, 82-84 
Supremacy, the Royal, 70- 
73, 81-88, 123 note, 191, 
197-198, 201 
Supremacy, Papal, 81 
Surrey, Earl of, see Howard, 

Henry- 
Sussex, Thomas Radcliffe, 

Earl of, 300 
Sutterton, 3 

Sutterton, William de, 3 
Switzerland, 211, 225 

T 

Tarbes, Bishop of, 30 note 
Taunton, 47 



Taylor, John, Dr., afterwards 

Bishop of Lincoln, 130, 206 
Taylor, Rowland, 348 
Te Deum, the, 204 
Ten Articles, see Articles 
Ten Conunandments, 114, 

126, 171, 189, 195, 273 
Thirlby, Thomas, Bishop of 

Ely and Norwich, 187, 191, 

257» 306, 358-360 
Tiptoft, John, Baron, 215 
Toleration, Religious, 122, 

131, 185, 283, 363 
Tracy, Richard, 180 
Traheron, Bartholomew, 210 

note, 216-217, 219, 220, 270 
Transubstantiation , 1 2 1 -i 2 2 , 

130, 148, 171, 210, 215- 

218, 219, 234-244, 304, 

351, 369 

Treason Laws, 201, 255, 276 

Tremellius, John Immanuel, 
268, 321 

Trent, Cotmcil of, 58 note, 
180, 267, 287 

Trent, River, 2, 102 

Tunstall, Cuthbert, Bishop of 
Durham, 116, 128, 129 
note, 137, 141, 158, 166, 
191, 203, 206, 249, 257, 
261, 276, 290, 306, 328, 
341 note 

Turner, William, 180 

Tyndale, John, 21, 96, 109, 
no note, III, 113, 180 

Tjrttenhanger, 38 

U 

Udall, Nicholas, 193, 248 

note 
Uhnis, John ab, 265, note 
Underbill, Edward, 309 
Uniformity, First Act of, 208, 

212, 247 
Uniformity, Second Act of, 

185, 275 
Uses, Statute of, 106 
Utenhove, John, 269 
Utraquists, 199 note 



Index 



399 



Vadianus, see Watt, J. de 
Vaughan, Stephen, 119 note 
Vermigli, Pietro Martire, 217, 

219, 238 note, 266, 268, 

272, 281, 333 
V^ron, Jean, 269 
Vestments Controversy, 265- 

267 
Vienna, 51 
Villach, 52, 53 
Villa Garcia, John de, 362, 

372 note, 377 note 
Voysey, John, Bishop of 

Exeter, 261 
Vulgate, the, 109 

W 

Walkelin, 4 

Waltham, 23, 38, 40 

Warham, William, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, vi, 
17. 29, 52, 53, 67, 70, 72- 
73, 79, 84 note, 92, 95, 96 
note, 161, 320, 324 

Warwick, Earl of, see Dud- 
ley, John 

Watt, Joachim of, 122, 221, 
234, 236 

Watts, Dr., 136 

Welbeck Abbey, 11, 323 

West, Nicholas, Bishop of 
Ely, 16 

Westminster Abbey, 60, 186, 
208 

Weston, Dr. Hugh, 279 note, 

343-345 
Wethershed, Richard, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, 52 
Whatton, i, 10, 11, 323 
Whitechurch, Edwardf, 327 

note 
Whitehall, 182 
Whitehead, David, 261 
White Horse Tavern, 20 
Wied, Hermann von. Arch- 
bishop of Cologne, 221 

27 



Williams, Sir John, Lord 
Williams of Thame, 342, 

374, 381 
Willoughby, Dr. John, 148- 

149 
Wiltshire, Earls of, see Bo- 

leyn, Thomas, and Paulet, 

William 
Winchelsea, Archbishop, 52 
Winchester, Bishops of, see 

Gardiner and Ponet 
Windsor, 215 
Windsor Commission, the, 

214-215 
Wittenberg, 39, 66, 94, 212, 

269 
Wolsey, Thomas, Archbishop 

of York, vi, 14, 20, 27, 28, 

30 note, 36, 41, 47, 67, 68, 

74, 93» 137, 159, 161, 197- 

198, 313. 324 
Worcester, Bishops of, see 

Heath and Latimer 
Wotton, Dr. Nicholas, 61, 

145, 150 

Wriothesley, Thomas, Lord 
Chancellor, Earl of South- 
ampton, 137 note, 179, 
180, 184 note, 186-187, 
253-254, 258 

Wyatt, Sir Thomas, 263 note, 
340 note, 342 

Wycliffe, John, 63, 90, 91, 92, 
180, 270 

Wy differs Wicket, 92 

Y 

York, Archbishops of, see 

Wolsey and Lee 
York Place, 101 
Yorkshire, rebellion in, 106 



Zurich, 212 

Zwingli and Zwinglianism, 
122, 170 note, 209-210, 
216-217, 220, 224, 225, 
227, 228, 234-236, 241, 
267, 270-272, 274, 319 



,^^ 






V 



^ 






.•i!-' 



'> °^'^'^%<- .<^' 



^<. '^ "^ * <r S 

<l. * .0 K. ^ \^^ 



.^^cO-/.^<, 



'^^ 



>V .r> 




• 






A^^ ^''"*. 

> ^^^^r^.-'. 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper pro( 
aV <^« Neutralizing agent: iVlagnesium Oxide 



:/ 



-.^--^^^ 



2001 



<%> .^ Treatment Date: 

^. " ' -..^^ "^ Preservationiechnoloc 

S^ :!^ ,^jY?>:2-. '' . A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVA 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 




,0o_. 



\j 






,^'V 



/■ JfN^i . Or ^ 



" % 









i' « 



.Oo^ 



'^^'' *^"^ ,(P 






A-^' 



^^ 









21 




\ o 

r 









.^ .^^ -n^. 



^^ 



■J^' 






vO^^. 



9> ^''c^. 



aO 



» 















A"* 



z -; 









-,^ 



>' % 









oo^ 



V 



.^^ 










^ '^^ fe. &i -i 






-b. 



xO^^, 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




007 32^ 421 



mmm 



^^m^i^ 




